Firecracker Ban and Air Pollution: Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment on Environmental Protection

The Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment addressing the environmental and health hazards posed by firecrackers, particularly during Diwali. The case, filed by three infants—Arjun Gopal and others—raised concerns about the deteriorating air quality in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR). The petitioners argued that the rampant use of firecrackers during Diwali exacerbated pollution levels, causing severe health risks, especially for children.

The petition, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 728 of 2015, sought a complete ban on firecrackers, citing scientific evidence that the pollution from fireworks contributed significantly to air quality degradation. The petitioners contended that air pollution reached critical levels during Diwali, exposing citizens to health hazards, particularly respiratory ailments.

Background of the Case

Air pollution in Delhi has been a growing concern, with multiple factors contributing to its severity. However, the petitioners specifically highlighted that the air quality deteriorated drastically during Diwali due to the burning of firecrackers. They pointed to data showing that pollutants such as PM2.5 and PM10 spiked alarmingly during this period, creating a public health crisis.

The petitioners emphasized that children are particularly vulnerable to air pollution, facing risks such as asthma, bronchitis, and cognitive impairments. They argued that the right to clean air is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners presented a strong case, citing scientific studies and expert opinions:

They argued that firecracker emissions contained toxic chemicals such as barium, aluminum, and strontium, which have severe health implications.
Studies by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) confirmed that post-Diwali air quality deteriorated to “severe” levels, leading to an increase in respiratory and cardiac ailments.
The petitioners emphasized that the government had failed to take adequate steps to address the problem despite repeated warnings from environmental agencies.
The precautionary principle in environmental law mandates preventive action even in the absence of full scientific certainty.
They argued that the right to health and clean air outweighs commercial interests in the firecracker industry.

Respondents’ Counterarguments

The opposing parties, including firecracker manufacturers and the State of Tamil Nadu, presented the following counterarguments:

They claimed that no conclusive study had directly linked firecrackers to prolonged air pollution, arguing that multiple factors contribute to poor air quality.
They highlighted the economic implications of banning firecrackers, stating that the industry provides employment to over 5 lakh families and generates ₹6,000 crores annually.
The respondents cited the cultural and religious significance of fireworks during Diwali, arguing that a blanket ban would infringe upon religious freedoms under Article 25 of the Constitution.
They argued that banning firecrackers would lead to illegal production and black-market sales, making enforcement more difficult.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling

After considering both sides, the Supreme Court acknowledged the severity of air pollution and the role of firecrackers in exacerbating the issue. However, rather than imposing a complete ban, the court sought a balanced approach. Key observations included:

The right to health and a clean environment takes precedence over commercial interests, aligning with the principle of sustainable development.
Scientific studies confirmed a direct correlation between Diwali-related firecracker emissions and the spike in pollution levels.
The need for regulatory measures rather than a blanket ban to mitigate the harmful effects of fireworks.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court issued the following directives:

Only “green crackers” with reduced emissions would be permitted for sale.
Manufacture and sale of traditional high-emission firecrackers were banned.
Licensing restrictions were imposed, allowing sales only through authorized vendors.
Online sales of firecrackers were strictly prohibited, with platforms like Amazon and Flipkart barred from selling them.
Use of hazardous chemicals such as barium salts was banned in firecrackers.
Fireworks could only be used between 8:00 PM and 10:00 PM on Diwali, with similar restrictions for other festivals.
Community firecracker events were encouraged over individual usage to minimize pollution.
Police and environmental agencies were tasked with strict enforcement and monitoring of compliance.

Impact of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s ruling had far-reaching implications. While it did not impose an absolute ban, the restrictions significantly reduced firecracker-related pollution. Reports indicated a decline in air pollution levels compared to previous years, with studies showing a 39% reduction in PM2.5 levels during Diwali in 2017 compared to 2016.

The ruling set a precedent for judicial intervention in environmental issues, reinforcing the application of the precautionary principle and emphasizing the need for sustainable development.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision on firecrackers was a crucial step in India’s battle against air pollution. By balancing environmental concerns with economic and cultural factors, the judgment provided a framework for responsible celebrations while safeguarding public health. It reinforced the constitutional mandate of the right to life and health, highlighting the judiciary’s role in environmental protection.

While the ruling faced criticism from some quarters, it underscored the urgent need for sustainable alternatives and stricter enforcement of environmental laws. The transition to green fireworks and regulated festivities exemplifies how legal interventions can drive positive change in public health and environmental conservation.

Petitioner Name: Arjun Gopal and Others.
Respondent Name: Union of India and Others.
Judgment By: Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice Ashok Bhushan.
Place Of Incident: Delhi and NCR.
Judgment Date: 23-10-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Arjun Gopal and Othe vs Union of India and O Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 23-10-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Environmental Cases
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Judgment by A.K. Sikri
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Environmental Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Environmental Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Environmental Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Environmental Cases Category