When an accident comes without warning, even the most prepared person can fall victim. One moment, you're walking to a restaurant after a long day of work. The next moment, someone else's negligence and carelessness change your life forever. Personal injury victims aren't just the victims of negligence they suffer from pain, concern over family and ability to work. Often, these victims do not have the luxury of worrying about work and family, because they're clinging to life in an ER. Without a personal injury attorney in Union, SC, by their side, they mistakenly provide official statements to insurance agencies and accept settlement offers that only account for a fraction of what they have lost.
If you have recently been hurt in an accident, you may be asking questions like:
With more than 100,000 car accidents in South Carolina every year, we hear these questions every day. Our hearts hurt for those who are suffering due to no fault of their own. Accident victims are not only left with questions like those above; they're also forced to deal with costs associated with medical bills, car repair, follow-up appointments, and loss of income.
While reading these facts can be bleak, there is a silver lining. South Carolina law dictates that those who are found responsible for your pain and suffering may be obligated to pay for your expenses. Cobb Hammett, LLC exists for that exact reason to make sure that negligent parties are held accountable. We fight on your behalf to make sure you get the compensation you deserve. We aren't afraid to go toe-to-toe with greedy insurance agencies who do not have your best interests at heart.
Our overarching goal is to protect your rights, and our law firm is uniquely positioned to do so.
We offer comprehensive vehicle representation for a number of different automobile accidents, including:
If you know you have been involved in one of the car accidents above, the time to seek experienced representation is now. Generally, car accident victims have three years from the date of their injuries to file a personal injury claim in Union. That time frame can be reduced in certain circumstances. When a wrongful death is involved, surviving family members must take action in a similar time frame.
The bottom line is that speed is of the essence in these cases. When we sit down with you to learn more about your accident, we will help you understand South Carolina law so that you are fully informed before taking legal action. The sooner we can dig into the details of your case, the sooner we can fight for your rights.
The law states that personal injury victims are entitled to compensation for the full extent of their injuries. Why? Because the primary goal of injury compensation in Union, SC, is to help the victim return to the state they would have been in, if the accident never occurred. In the literal sense, doing so isn't possible. The law cannot reverse the incredible suffering and pain that accompanies a severe injury. As such, personal injury victims are entitled to receive a financial reward that equals those damages.
How much compensation you get depends on the facts and nuances of your case. With that said, you may be able to recover compensation for the following needs:
If you or someone you love was recently injured in a car wreck, contact our office today to speak with a personal injury lawyer in Union, SC. The sooner you call, the sooner we can begin fighting for your rights and the compensation you need.
If there were one common truth that we can count on, it's that life is unpredictable. Sometimes, accidents just happen. However, when recklessness and negligence come into play in situations where accidents cause personal injuries, the negligent party can be held responsible under South Carolina law. For victims to have a chance at compensation, the party responsible for the accident must be proven to be negligent. When a party or parties are negligent, they fail to take appropriate care when performing an action, like driving an automobile.
After an accident occurs, it is critical to take certain steps to help prove the responsible party's negligence and maximize the compensation you rightly deserve.
All too often, car wreck victims don't get the compensation they need because they failed to take the proper steps after their accident. Don't let this be you. By having comprehensive records of your car accident and its aftermath, you have a much better chance of protecting your rights and maximizing compensation for your bills and injuries. If you have been injured in an automobile accident in Union, follow these steps before doing anything else:
First and foremost, seek medical attention for any injuries that you have sustained. You might not realize it now, but your injuries may be more complex and serious than you think. Damage like head trauma and back injuries are not easy to diagnose on your own and sometimes take time to surface. A full medical examination will help reveal the extent of your injuries, lead to a quicker recovery, and help document the injuries you sustained. This last part is essential to prove the significance of your injuries.
The second step you should take is to report your injuries to the correct authorities. The authorities change depending on the circumstances of your accident. If you were involved in a car wreck in Union, you should file your report with the highway authorities and any associated insurance agencies. Regardless of where you were injured and how the wreck occurred, the biggest takeaway here is to file a report. That way, you have an established, official record of the incident that can be referred to down the line.
Personal injury cases in Union are won with evidence. It might sound like the job of the police, but it's important that you try to secure any evidence that you can collect relating to your accident, especially if you are injured. Evidence in auto accident cases tends to disappear quickly. By preserving evidence soon after the accident, it can be used in court. For example, if you cannot get a witness statement immediately after your wreck, their testimony may come across as less reliable. Completing this task on your own can be quite difficult, especially after a serious accident. That's why it's so crucial to complete the last step below.
One of the most intelligent, important steps you can take after a car accident is calling a personal injury attorney in Union, SC. At Cobb Hammett, LLC, we will assist you with every step of your personal injury case to ensure that your rights are protected. That includes gathering all types of evidence relevant to your case. When we investigate your accident, we will determine the person who is liable for your losses. If there are multiple liable parties, we will hold each one accountable for their negligence.
Every personal injury case is different, which is why experience counts when it comes to car accident compensation. Our track record speaks for itself, but no number of past results will guarantee a perfect outcome. What we can guarantee, however, is our undivided attention and fierce dedication to your case, no matter the circumstances. Unlike other personal injury law firms in Union, you can have peace of mind knowing your best interests always come first at Cobb Hammett, LLC.
At Cobb Hammett, LLC, we have years of experience handling some of Union's most complicated car accident cases. Some of the most common cases that come across our desks include:
Drunk driving is a major problem in the Lowcountry. Drunk drivers are incredibly irresponsible and regularly cause fatal accidents because they drive physically and mentally impaired by alcohol. Drunk drivers have slower reaction times, delayed reflexes, and impaired vision, making them unfit to operate a motor vehicle. In auto wrecks, drunk drivers often come away with minor injuries compared to their victims, which is a bitter pill to swallow
Individuals who make a choice to drive drunk cause accidents by weaving in and out of traffic, going over the speed limit, failing to see pedestrians, and ignoring traffic laws. They may run cars off the road, rear-end vehicles, hit them head-on, or even cause a vehicle to roll over.
Drunk driving accidents in Union care result in horrible injuries, such as:
If you are injured or have lost a family member due to an impaired or drunk driver, our team of personal injury lawyers in Union can help. We have extensive experience with car accident cases and can explain your rights in simple, plain terms. It is important to know that you can file a personal injury suit regardless of the criminal case outcome against the drunk driver.
When accidents happen in RVs or rental cars, people are often unsure of their rights. This confusion is understandable since there are additional insurance and legal issues that must be accounted for in these cases.
Fortunately, the lawyers at Cobb Hammett, LLC, have the experience to help you with complex car accident and RV cases. When it comes to rental and RV accidents, we review each client's case with a fine-tooth comb. Once we understand your accident, our team will explain your rights and options in easy-to-understand terms.
If you were involved in an accident while driving an RV or a rental vehicle, you may find that your auto insurance company, the rental car's insurance company, and the other party's insurance carrier will try to deny your claim. Situations like these call for a bold, experienced personal injury attorney in Union, SC, who isn't afraid of large corporations and insurance groups. We have extensive experience with insurance companies and know how to interpret policies. As your advocate, we will ensure that you receive the coverage and compensation you are entitled to, even if an insurance company says you aren't.
We can help you seek compensation in cases that involve:
Victims of RV and rental car accidents (as well as their families) may be entitled to compensation for pain and suffering, medical expenses, and lost income or benefits. Our personal injury lawyers work with life-care planners, medical experts, and economists to determine the amount of compensation you will need.
We live in a time where just about everyone has their eyes glued to their phones. Often, this happens in situations where the person needs to be paying attention, like when they're driving an automobile. Taking a few moments to glance down at your phone can cause irreparable damage to other drivers. That is why texting while driving is illegal in Union. Typically, this crime is met with a minor traffic violation. However, when a distracted driver injures another motorist, you can seek compensation through a legal suit. If you have been injured in such a situation, our team can help you hold the negligent driver accountable for your losses and damages.
Texting takes drivers' minds and eyes off the road and their hands off the wheel. Because they are not paying attention to their driving,
They miss crucial road signs and information such as:
At Cobb Hammett, LLC, we represent injury victims in Union who are involved in all types of car accidents, including distracted driving. We work with vigor to recover the full amount of compensation you and your family will need to recover. You can rely on our attorneys for dedicated, representation throughout your case. Unlike some distracted driving lawyers in Union, we will assist you with all aspects of your accident, including access to good medical care if needed.
At Cobb Hammett, LLC, we are proud of our commitment to our clients. We pledge to provide them with the highest quality legal representation in Union and treat them with respect, empathy, and compassion. If you are suffering from the results of a dangerous car accident, know we are here to assist.
We will help you seek compensation for your medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and additional losses. Surviving family members may also recover funeral expenses and compensation for the personal loss of a loved one, including the deceased's future income and benefits. When you or your family's health and financial security are on the line, trust the best choose Cobb Hammett, LLC.
CONTACT USNew Delhi: Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav on Monday welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to stay its order accepting a uniform definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges, and said the government stands committed to its protection and restoration. The apex court kept in abeyance the directions in its November 20 verdict that had accepted a uniform definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges recommended by a committee of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEFCC). It also proposed to constitute a high-powered...
New Delhi: Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav on Monday welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to stay its order accepting a uniform definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges, and said the government stands committed to its protection and restoration. The apex court kept in abeyance the directions in its November 20 verdict that had accepted a uniform definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges recommended by a committee of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEFCC). It also proposed to constitute a high-powered committee comprising domain experts to undertake an exhaustive and holistic examination of the issue.
"I welcome the Supreme Court directions introducing a stay on its order concerning the Aravalli range, and the formation of a new committee to study issues. We stand committed to extending all assistance sought from MOEFCC in the protection and restoration of the Aravalli range," Yadav said in a post on X.
"As things stand, a complete ban on mining stays with regard to new mining leases or renewal of old mining leases," he added.
The top court on November 20 accepted a uniform definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges and banned the grant of fresh mining leases inside its areas spanning Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat until experts' reports are out.
The apex court had accepted the recommendations of a committee of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on the definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges to protect the world's oldest mountain system.
The committee had recommended that "Aravalli Hill" be defined as any landform in designated Aravalli districts with an elevation of 100 metres or more above its local relief, and an "Aravalli Range" will be a collection of two or more such hills within 500 metres of each other.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Tamil Nadu government to hold a joint consultation with the Centre on the issue of establishing Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) in the state, observing ‘we are a federal society’.A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan said the state government should not adopt an adversarial attitude and there must be a federal discussion.The top court directed the authorities to ascertain the extent of land required for establishing JNVs in each district of T...
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Tamil Nadu government to hold a joint consultation with the Centre on the issue of establishing Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) in the state, observing ‘we are a federal society’.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan said the state government should not adopt an adversarial attitude and there must be a federal discussion.
The top court directed the authorities to ascertain the extent of land required for establishing JNVs in each district of Tamil Nadu.
"You come one step, they will also come one step. They may come two steps.
"After the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu has gotten all the glory. It is the largest industrialised state in South India," the bench said.
It asked the Tamil Nadu government not to take it as an imposition, saying it is an opportunity for the state's students.
"You can say this is our language policy. They will look into it,” the court said.
It told the Tamil Nadu government that the Centre would also not discredit the state's policy.
"Bring to the notice of the secretaries of the central government about your act and how you are going about it. Please have a positive attitude," the bench said.
The apex court said it had passed the directions in the interest of students who are entitled to be admitted to JNVs in Tamil Nadu.
During the hearing, senior advocate P Wilson, appearing for Tamil Nadu, submitted that the JNVs follow a three-language formula, whereas the state government has a statutory two-language policy.
He said the Tamil Nadu government would have to provide around 30 acres of land in each district and bear related costs.
Justice Nagarathna observed that the issue should not be turned into a language dispute.
"Don't make it into a language issue. We are a federal society. You are part of the Republic. If you come one step forward, they will also come one step forward," she said.
The top court was hearing an appeal against the Madras High Court order filed by the state government.
The high court had directed the state to permit the establishment of JNVs after taking note of the written submission made by the Centre and the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas, saying there was no imposition of Hindi in the regional schools.
The state government, in its reply, had stated that under the Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act, 2006, it followed a two-language system of having Tamil and English as the medium of instruction.
<img>BKU Azad Trust’s petition before the SC challenged the four-week voter-verification timeline in Uttar PradeshThe Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) Azad Trust has approached the Supreme Court seeking a three-month extension of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls underway in Uttar Pradesh, warning that the current four-week timeline is “administratively impossible” for a state with over 15.35 crore voters.The Petitioner emphasised that the challenge is not to the SIR itself, but o...
<img>
BKU Azad Trust’s petition before the SC challenged the four-week voter-verification timeline in Uttar Pradesh
The Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) Azad Trust has approached the Supreme Court seeking a three-month extension of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls underway in Uttar Pradesh, warning that the current four-week timeline is “administratively impossible” for a state with over 15.35 crore voters.
The Petitioner emphasised that the challenge is not to the SIR itself, but only to the compressed time frame which, it argues, risks widespread and arbitrary disenfranchisement.
Filed as a public interest litigation, the petition describes the Trust as a non-partisan organisation working across rural Uttar Pradesh to strengthen democratic participation among farmers and rural labourers. It states that despite submitting a representation to the Election Commission seeking more time for the SIR, no remedial action has followed, prompting the present plea.
The petition filed through AoR Ansar Ahmed Chaudhary and drawn by Advocates Charu Mathur, Md. Anas Chaudhary, Snehla Chaudhary and Alia Bano Zaidi underscores that the SIR is a welcome and essential democratic exercise, but insists that the four-week window is “manifestly inadequate” for a statewide, house-to-house verification.
The Trust seeks an extension solely to ensure accuracy of entries, proper disposal of claims and objections, inclusion of new or migrated voters, and protection against mass deletions caused by hurried verification. The Request, it stresses, aligns with the constitutional mandate of universal adult suffrage under Article 326.
Citing the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, the petition notes that the law prescribes no fixed duration for such revisions and that timelines must be “reasonable, practicable and non-arbitrary”.
The petition highlights that past intensive revisions; 13 rounds from 1952 to 2004, were conducted over extended periods, with the last such exercise taking nearly two years. The ongoing SIR is the first multi-state effort in more than two decades, making adequate time and procedural fairness essential.
The Trust also details socio-economic and seasonal barriers facing rural voters. The SIR coincides with peak sugarcane harvesting, during which farmers and labourers are either fully occupied or migrate to other states. Illiteracy, limited access to Booth Level Officers, and mobility challenges for women and the elderly further exacerbate the risk of exclusion.
Serious concerns are raised regarding the use of untrained volunteers such as Anganwadi workers, NCC and NSS participants for door-to-door verification. The petition contends that these volunteers are not recognised under the statutory framework, have no formal training or confidentiality obligations, and are being handed sensitive personal information; posing significant data security and privacy risks at a time when “digital arrest” scams are rampant.
The petition also flags overburdening of Booth Level Officers, many of whom are school teachers compelled to complete an “impossible workload” within an unrealistic timeline. The Trust cites media reports noting extreme stress and even suicides linked to administrative pressure in other states during similar revisions.
Arguing that Uttar Pradesh faces no imminent Assembly or Parliamentary elections, the Trust asserts that there is no election-linked urgency justifying the compressed timeline. It proposes practical safeguards including special camps, trained personnel to assist vulnerable citizens, mandatory acknowledgment receipts for all submissions, and designated grievance officers at the block level.
Contending that the four-week time frame violates Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21 and 326 of the Constitution, the Trust urges the Supreme Court to grant a reasonable extension to ensure the SIR is conducted with fairness, transparency and procedural integrity.
The petition concludes that it seeks not to obstruct the SIR, but to protect millions of rural and marginalised voters from being excluded due to administrative haste.
Case Title: Bharatiya Kisan Union Azad Trust v. Election Commission of India & Ors.
Date of Registration of PIL: November 27, 2025
Bench: Supreme Court of India (hearing expected)
The Supreme Court on Monday, November 17, heard a petition on the prolonged failure of the Union government and several states to appoint Information Commissioners.Noting that vacancies were undermining the functioning of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed Himachal Pradesh to fill all vacant posts in its State Information Commission (SIC) within two months, and instructed Jharkhand to complete its long-pending appointment process within one month.The Bench said...
The Supreme Court on Monday, November 17, heard a petition on the prolonged failure of the Union government and several states to appoint Information Commissioners.
Noting that vacancies were undermining the functioning of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed Himachal Pradesh to fill all vacant posts in its State Information Commission (SIC) within two months, and instructed Jharkhand to complete its long-pending appointment process within one month.
The Bench said it would hear the case again in the next few days.
Appearing for the petitioners, Anjali Bhardwaj, Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd.) and Amrita Johri, Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan told the court that the Central Information Commission (CIC) has been without a chief for more than two months and that eight of the ten sanctioned posts of Information Commissioners are vacant.
The CIC currently faces a backlog of nearly 30,000 cases. Bhushan informed the court that several SICs are also functioning with serious shortages.
These are the details shared by the petitioners on the pendency at the state level commissions:
Jharkhand: Defunct for more than five years; no longer registering new cases. Himachal Pradesh: Defunct for more than four months. Chhattisgarh: Operating with only one commissioner despite nearly 35,000 pending matters. Maharashtra: Three posts vacant; backlog close to 1 lakh cases. Tamil Nadu: Only seven commissioners sanctioned despite a backlog of around 41,000 cases. Madhya Pradesh: Operating with four commissioners; around 20,000 matters pending.
Also read: RTI at 20: How RTI Exposed Corruption and Why the Govt Fears It | Jaanne Bhi Do Yaaro
Since the last hearing on October 27, the Karnataka government has filled all vacancies in its commission, bringing it to the full sanctioned strength of 11 commissioners. Counsel for the Union of India told the court that a meeting of the selection committee would be held shortly and that appointments would be completed at the earliest.
The petitioners argued that governments were “completely undermining” citizens’ right to information by not making timely and transparent appointments, resulting in delays of over a year in the disposal of appeals and complaints. They also highlighted the need to follow the transparency standards mandated in the Supreme Court’s 2019 Anjali Bhardwaj judgment.
The petitioners were also represented by advocate Rahul Gupta.
This article went live on November seventeenth, two thousand twenty five, at thirty-nine minutes past six in the evening.
AnalysisDelhi Air Pollution Crisis | Can’t hold us to standards of developed countries, Union argues; SC asks for long term planAmicus says burning is undercounted; Union points to machinery subsidies; Court seeks durable plan beyond seasonal bansToday, the Supreme Court pressed the Union Government, Punjab and Haryana to come back within a day with a workable, long-term solution to Delhi’s pollution emergency. The direction followed submissions that satellite data is undercounting farm fires and that the c...
Analysis
Amicus says burning is undercounted; Union points to machinery subsidies; Court seeks durable plan beyond seasonal bans
Today, the Supreme Court pressed the Union Government, Punjab and Haryana to come back within a day with a workable, long-term solution to Delhi’s pollution emergency. The direction followed submissions that satellite data is undercounting farm fires and that the causes of stubble burning have remained unresolved for over a decade.
The Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justices K.V. Chandran and N.V. Anjaria made clear that short-term bans and seasonal restrictions cannot address the pollution situation in the capital.
On 15 October, the Court allowed the limited sale and use of green firecrackers across the NCR for a four-day window during Diwali. The Bench directed strict monitoring of air quality, enforcement and compliance to prevent violations
Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, appearing as amicus curiae, told the Court that the present stubble-burning schedules cannot be understood without first recognising that Punjab’s paddy sowing was deliberately delayed from 2009 to conserve groundwater. “Because the paddy is delayed, the harvesting of paddy and then planting of wheat are compressed… farmers don’t have enough time. The easiest thing to do is to burn,” she submitted.
Singh emphasised that this burning is not out of negligence but compulsion. She recalled that it was at the Court’s intervention that specialised machinery, balers, Happy Seeders and Super Seeders had been heavily subsidised. “50 percent for individual farmers, 80 percent for cooperatives. Thousands of machines have been provided every year since 2018.”
She said Punjab’s new plea seeking ₹100 per quintal compensation from the Centre was a “repetitive” proposal that recurs annually despite huge public spending. “Why have they not been able to solve it? Asking for ₹100 per quintal is one solution, but not the solution,” she told the Bench.
Singh alerted the Bench to the fact that official stubble-burning numbers are incomplete. Referencing India Today, The Hindu and posts by NASA scientist Hiren Jetwa, she said farmers have been told the timing of satellite passes so they can burn after the satellite crosses. “Actual burning is being undercounted,” she stressed, adding that the CAQM’s own report confirms that current methods “do not capture all the burning.”
ASG Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union, acknowledged the limitations of current detection systems. “We do notice gaps… we have developed a protocol with ISRO and are working on two additional protocols to calculate burnt area,” she said, clarifying that these remain in trial phases.
Bhati submitted that Punjab’s present application was “nothing new,” pointing out that the Centre had already disbursed ₹1,963 crores to the State for crop-residue machinery. She added that machinery distribution is monitored by CAQM, with state governments involved at every step.
According to Bhati, Delhi’s overall pollution load is driven by its geographic position as well as human-generated emissions and stubble burning. She urged the Court to recognise the constraints of a developing country and added, “When you compare a developed country with developing countries, the same measures cannot apply. We are Global South; our realities have to be seen.”
Responding to concerns over AQI equipment, Bhati said the monitors used are “one of the best in the world”. The amicus, however, countered that some stations cap at 999 AQI, and sought an affidavit. Bhati explained that sprinkling of water around stations was part of GRAP-III requirements, including mandatory anti-smog guns for high-rise buildings.
Appearing for an intervenor, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan stated that “nothing like this has ever been seen before… we are in an emergency situation,”. He recalled that Delhi’s air improvements in the early 2000s were achieved only because past Benches took uncompromising measures, such as mandatory CNG conversion and removal of highly polluting industries.
Sankaranarayanan described the Punjab and Haryana paddy-sowing laws of 2009–10 as the root cause of the compressed crop cycle. The real solution, he argued, lay in advancing paddy sowing by at least two months, as practised in California and Beijing. He submitted, “Burning cannot be ended; it happens in farm systems globally. What matters is when the burning happens…it must not happen when the winds flow to Delhi.”
He added that geostationary satellite data shows farm-fire numbers have not actually fallen, and emissions in 2022, 2023 and 2024 have increased. “The numbers remain the same… the emissions remain the same,” he submitted.
Sankaranarayanan criticised India’s AQI thresholds. “When WHO says 50 is dangerous, our triggers are set far higher. PM2.5 is irreversible. Once it goes into my child’s lungs, it will never leave.” When CJI Gavai asked whether he expected everything to be stalled year-round, Sankaranarayanan replied, “It has to be stalled. Three out of ten deaths in Delhi are singularly caused by air pollution.”
From the Bench
The Court said that Delhi’s pollution cannot be handled through short-term or seasonal responses—the problem now requires a long-term plan. CJI Gavai noted that the city’s air quality has continued to deteriorate despite repeated restrictions every winter and remarked that “a long-term solution needs to be worked out”. When Sankaranarayanan urged a year-round halt on several activities, the Bench said this was not practical. “We cannot only think about one side… a large population depends on these activities,” CJI Gavai noted, adding that a blanket stop on construction was not possible.
The Court also directed the Chief Secretaries of Punjab and Haryana to ensure full implementation of the CAQM’s directions on stubble burning. The Bench noted that while recorded incidents may have reduced, the pollution levels have not. The Union Government was asked to place on record a concrete long-term proposal, after Singh and Bhati both stated that temporary measures were not sufficient. On the concern raised by the amicus regarding AQI monitors capping at 999 and the possibility that satellite systems were not capturing all fires, the Bench asked the Union to file an affidavit explaining the monitoring equipment in use and its accuracy.
The Court gave the authorities a day to respond and listed the matter for further hearing on 19 November.