Questions At Supreme Court's Order Diluting Firecracker Ban In NCR

Several reports suggest that the Air Quality Index of the national capital worsened after the Diwali celebrations. As per some reports, this is the most polluted Diwali of recent years, and the uncontrolled bursting of firecrackers is considered to be a major contributor. Reports also indicate that the Supreme Court's 'green cracker' order was flouted, and illegal crackers were used beyond the time limits set by the Court. There are also reports that cases of respiratory illnesses spiked in hospitals after Diwali, with some doctors pinning the blame on firecrackers.

The purpose of this article is not to examine whether firecrackers are responsible for the air quality crisis in Delhi. Rather, it is to raise certain propriety concerns over the manner in which the Supreme Court allowed the use of 'green crackers', diluting the earlier directions imposing an absolute year-long ban on the sale and use of firecrackers in the National Capital Region.

Last year, a bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka passed a series of orders in the MC Mehta case to address the alarming air quality crisis in the National Capital Region. Considering the fact that “air pollution was at an all time high” during Diwali 2024 due to the tardy implementation of the firecracker ban and other factors, the bench passed a slew of directions to strengthen enforcement. On December 19, 2024, the Court extended the firecracker ban in Delhi to the NCR districts of UP and Haryana, observing that the ban would otherwise not be effective. On January 17, 2025, this ban was extended until further orders.

On April 2, 2025, the bench passed a detailed order, rejecting applications to restrict the ban on firecrackers' sale and use in the NCR to only 3-4 months a year. In other words, the Court held that the ban must remain in force throughout the year without any exception. The Court referred to the “extraordinary situation” in NCR because the “air pollution level remained alarming for a considerably long time.” The bench also specifically rejected a plea to allow the use of green crackers. The bench noted that the pollution caused by green crackers is only 30% less than regular fire crackers even as per the affidavit filed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change in March 2025.

“Unless the court is satisfied that the pollution caused by the “so-called Green crackers” is to the bare minimum, there is no question of reconsidering the earlier orders,” the bench observed.

The bench also stated that “only if it is scientifically shown that the bursting of so-called green crackers results into bare minimum pollution”, the ban would be reconsidered.

However, just after 6 months of this order, another bench (which considered the MC Mehta case after the retirement of Justice Oka in May), on October 15, relaxed the ban to permit the use of green crackers. Apart from the poor optics of one bench altering an order passed by a coordinate bench shortly after the retirement of the presiding judge, the latest order passed by the bench led by CJI BR Gavai does not record any compelling and substantive reason to allow the use of 'green crackers'. Was there any data to show that the pollution levels caused by green crackers have reduced to the “bare minimum” or that the air quality of NCR has improved? The order merely records a claim that NEERI has developed green crackers that “cut particulate emissions by a minimum of 30 percent but ranging upto 80%”. However, even as per the statement in the NEERI website, green crackers “reduce harmful emissions by 30-50% compared to conventional fireworks.” Perhaps a prudent course would have been to subject these claims to rigorous tests to see if pollution has reduced to the “bare minimum.” Without such studies, can a matter concerning the health of millions be so hastily dealt with? By issuing these directions as a “test measure”, it appears that the people have been made subjects of an experiment.

The October 15 order in effect imported the directions issued in 2018 in the Arjun Gopal case on the use of green crackers. The previous bench, in its April 3 order, had specifically given reasons as to why the Arjun Gopal directions, issued before six years, cannot be applied in the changed circumstances in NCR. “The judgment is of the year 2018. Much water has flown thereafter. Before making this submission, the applicant should have verified what happened in Delhi during last four years,” the bench had observed in its April 3 order. The latest bench however has not given any explanation as to why it was choosing to follow the Arjun Gopal directions.

One justification given by the Court for relaxing the ban was that the total prohibition was not being effectively enforced. The Court found that despite the ban, conventional crackers had continued to be smuggled into the NCR. This reasoning sets a troubling precedent that poor enforcement can be a ground for weakening a regulation.

The Court also said it was told that air-quality improvements since earlier bans have been marginal and cited that the average AQI in NCR had not improved substantially between 2018 and 2024 despite bans.

If the data show little improvement, two possibilities emerge : either the ban was not enforced or crackers are not a significant contributor. But the decision to lift the ban does not appear to have been preceded by a rigorous, independent impact assessment of how much bursting of crackers actually contributes to winter-smog in NCR. The absence of such robust data shakes the foundation of the October 15 order.

When the Court itself recorded enforcement failure as a factor to dilute the ban, issuance of further riders for the use and sale of green crackers appeared ironic. If the authorities are not taken to task for their failures, the additional conditions will only have a paper value. In this context, the Court's willingness to revisit its own order at the behest of the very authorities who failed in enforcing the ban sends a troubling signal.

Over all, the development leaves an unpleasant impression that the government and manufacturers secured a change in the order after a change in the bench.

The author is the Managing Editor of LiveLaw. He can be reached at manu@livelaw-in.demo.remotlog.com