Holding

The Court held that the suspension of permanent fireworks licences should be lifted and replaced by a graded regulatory framework rather than an outright ban, balancing the right to health and clean air with the rights of licence holders.

Summary

The Supreme Court heard an application for modification of its November 2016 interim order that had suspended all licences for the sale of fireworks in the National Capital Region (NCR) after severe air‑pollution following Diwali 2016. Petitioners – fireworks manufacturers and suppliers – argued that a total ban was disproportionate, while the Court recognised the constitutional right to clean air and health. The Court held that the health imperative does not justify an outright, permanent ban; instead a graded, balanced regulatory scheme was required. Accordingly, the suspension of permanent licences was lifted subject to strict compliance with the Explosives Rules, a cap on temporary licences, prohibition of certain toxic chemicals, and a series of public‑health and awareness measures. The Court also directed the CPCB and the Fire Development Research Centre to set standards for metal constituents in fireworks and appointed a multi‑disciplinary committee to study health impacts. The interim application for modification was disposed of, with the Court’s detailed directions forming the operative order.

Issues considered

The appropriateness of continuing the suspension of all fireworks licences in the NCR.
Whether a complete ban on the sale and bursting of fireworks is justified under the right to health and clean air.
The need to balance public‑health concerns with the commercial rights of permanent licence holders.
Interpretation of the Explosives Act, 1884 and Explosives Rules, 2008 regarding licensing and permissible substances.
The necessity of CPCB standards before imposing further restrictions.

Legislation cited

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
Constitution of Indias. Article 21, s. Article 32
Delhi Police Acts. 146
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986s. Schedule VII
Explosives Act, 1884s. 4(d), s. 5
Notification GSR No. 64(E) dated 27 January 1992

Subjects

public interest litigationfireworksair pollutionright to healthright to clean airExplosives Actenvironmental lawgraded regulationtemporary licencepermanent licenceDelhiNCR

Judgment

[2017] l 1 S.C.R. 821

ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(I.A. No. 52448 of 2017)
In B

(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 728 of2015)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Constitution of India - Art. 32 - Public interest litigation - c
Wi·it petition seeking ban on use of fireworks, sparklers and minor
explosives in any form, during festivals or otherwise - Interim order
passqd on 11.11.2016 directing suspension of all such licences
permitting sale ofjireworks, wholesale and retail within the territo1:v
of the National Capital Region - Manufacturers and suppliers of D
fireworks seeking modification of the interim order - Held:
Continuing the suspension of licences might be too radical a step
to take for the present - A graded and balanced approach is
necessary that would reduce and gradually eliminate air pollution
in Delhi and in the NCR caused by the bursting of.fireworks - At
E
the same time it is necessary to ensure that injustice is not caused to
those who have already been granted a valid permanent licence to
possess and sell firework.1· in Delhi and the NCR - Graded and
balanced approach is not intended to dilute the primary concern
which is and remains the health of everybody and the human right
to breathe good quality air - Health must take precedence over the F
commercial or other interest of the applicant and those granted a
permanent I icence lo possess and sell fireworks - Thus, a graded
regulation is necessary which would eventually result in a
prohibition - F11rthe1: it cannot be said with any great degree of
certain(v that the extremely poor quality of air in Delhi in November
and December 2016 was the result only of bursting.fireworks around G
Diwali, certainly, there were other causes as well - As a result, a
complete ban 011 the sale offireworks would be an extreme step that
might not be fi11/y warranted on the facts available - Also, large
number of temporary licences have been issued for possession and
sale of fireworks - Thus, there is some justification for modifying H
821
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] ll S.C.R.

A the interim order and lijling the suspension of the permanent
licences - Jn v1ell' thereof; <lirec:tions issued H'/tereb.v suspension oj
permanent licenses by order dated 11.11.2017, lilied temporarily -
Pollution - Air pollution.
Disposing of the interim application, the Conrt
B
HELD: 1.1 There can be no doubt that the residents of the
NCT of Delhi 11nd indeed the entire NCR arc entitled to breathe
unpolluted air, They arc entitled to the protection of their health
from the advctsc consequences of breathing in air polluted by
the bursting of fireworks, The right to breathe clean air is a
c recognized right under the Constitution. [Paras 65. 66] [851-CJ
l.2 The right to health coupled with the right to breathe
clean air leaves no manner of doubt that ii is important that air
pollution deserves to be eliminated and one of the possible
methods of reducing it during Diwali is by continuing the
D suspension of licences for the sale of fireworks and therefore
implicitly, prohibiting the bursting of fireworks. [Para 67) [852-
D)
l.3 Continuing the suspension of licences might be too
radical a step to take for the present-a graded and balanced
E approach is necessary that would reduce and gradually eliminate
air pollution in ,Delhi and in the NCR caused by the bursting of
fireworks. At the same time it is necessary to ensure that injustice
is not caused to those who have already been granted a valid
permanent licence to possess and sell fireworks in Delhi and the
NCR. The graded and balanced approach is not intended to dilute
F the primary concern which is and remains the health of everybody
and the human right to breathe good quality air or at least not be
compelled to breathe poor quality air. Generally speaking, this
must take precedence over the commercial or other interest of
the applicant and those granted a permanent licence to possess
G
and sell fireworks. [Para 68) [852-G-H; 853-A-B]
1.4 It cannot be said with any great degree of certainty that
the extremely poor quality of air in Delhi in November and
December 2016 was the result only of bursting fireworks around
Diwali. Certainly, there were other causes as well, but even so
the contribution of the bursting of fireworks cannot be glossed
H
ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 823

over. Unfortunately, neither is it possible to give an accurate or A
relative assessment of the contribution of the other identified
factors nor the contribution of bursting fireworks to the poor air
quality in Delhi and in the NCR. Consequently, a complete ban
on the sale of fireworks would be an extreme step that might not
be fully warranted by the facts available. There is, therefore, some
B
justification for modifying the interim order passed on 11th
November, 2016 and lifting the suspension of the permanent
licences. [Para 69) [852-H; 853-A-B)
1.5 It cannot be forgotten that admittedly there is a huge
quantity of fireworks in Delhi and in the NCR and the figure.has
been provided by the applicant. Similarly, there can be no doubt c
that the Delhi Police had issued a large number of temporary
licences in 2016 and it would not be unreasonable to assume that
around and during Diwali, there would have been some illegal
temporary shops set up, whether known or not known to the
police. There arc no figures with regard to the NCR, but it is D
assumed that like in Delhi, a large number of temporary licences
ha~·e been issued for the possession and sale of fireworks. Thus,
there is a need to regulate the availability and sale of fireworks
in Ddh.i and the NCR. [Pura 70] [853-B-D)
1.6 The health of the people in Delhi and in the NCR must E
take precedence over any commercial or other interest of the
applicant or any of the permanent licensees and, .therefore, a
gruded regulation is necessary which would eventually result in
a prohibition. [Para 71) [853-E]
2. Taking all factors into consideration, the following orders F
and directions arc issued:
(I) The directions issued by this Court in Sadar Bazar Fire Works
(P11cca Shop) A.vsociatio11 case shall stand partially modified to
the extent that they arc not in conformity with the Explosives
Rules which shall be implemented in full by the concerned G
authorities. Safety from fire hazards is one of the concerns in this
regard.
(2) Specifically, Ruic 15 relating to marking on explosives and
packages and Ruic 84 relating to temporary shops for possession
and sale of fireworks during festivals of the Explosives Rules H
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] ll S.C.R.

A shall be strictly enforced. This should not be construed to mean
that the other Rules need not be enforced - all Rules should be
enforced. But if the fireworks do not conform to the requirements
of Rules 15 and 84, they cannot be sold in the NCR, including
Delhi and this prohibition is absolute.
B (3) The directions issued and restrictions imposed in the order
passed by this Court on 18th July, 2005 in Noise Pollution (V)
shall continue to be in force.
(4) The concerned police authorities and the District Magistrates
would ensure that fireworks arc not burst in silence zones that
c is, an area at l~ast 100 meters away from hospitals, nursing homes,
primary and district health-care centres, educational institutions,
courts, religious places or any other area that may be declared as
a silence zon~ by the concerned authorities.
(5) The Delhi Police is directed to reduce the grant of temporary
D licences by about 50% of the number of licences granted in 2016.
The number of temporary licences should be capped at 500.
Similarly, the States in the NCR are restrained from granting more
than 50% of the number of temporary licences granted in 2016.
The area of distribution of the temporary licences is entirely for
lhe authorities to decide.
E
(6) The Unioll of India would ensure strict compliance with the
Nolilication GSR No. 64(E) dated 27th January, 1992 regarding
the ban on import of fireworks. The Union of India is at liberty to
update and rqvise this notification in view of the passage of time
and further knowledge gained over the last 25 years and issue a
F fresh notification, if necessary.
(7) The Department of Education of the Government of NCT of
Delhi and the corresponding Department in other States in the
NCR shall immediately formulate a plan of action, in not more
than 15 days, to reach out to children in all the schools through
G the school staff,volunteers and NGOs to sensitize and educate
school children on the health hazards and ill-effects of breathing
polluted air, including air that is polluted due to fireworks. School
children should be encouraged to reduce, if not eliminate, the
bursting of fireworks as a part of any festivities.
H (8) The Government of NCT of Delhi and other States in the
ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 825

NCR may consider interacting with established medical A
institutions for issuing advisories cautioning people about the
health hazards of bursting fireworks.
(9) The interim direction issued by this Court on 31st July, 2017
prohibiting the use of' compounds of antimony, lithium, mercury,
arsenic and lead in the manufacture of fireworks is made absolute. B
In addition, the use of strontium chromate in the manufacture of
fireworks is prohibited.
(10) Fireworks containing aluminium, sulphur, potassium and
barium may be sold in Delhi and in the NCR, provided the
composition already approved by PESO is maintained. U is the c
responsibility of PESO to ensure compliance of the standards it
has formulated.
(11) Since there are enough fireworks available for sale in Delhi
and the NCR, the transport of fireworks into Delhi and the NCR
from outside the region is prohibited and the concerned law D
enforcement authorities would ensure that there is no further
entry of fireworks into Delhi and the NCR till further orders.
Even 50,00,000 kg of fireworks is far more than enough for
Dusschra und Diwali in 2017. The permanent licensees are at
liberty to exhaust their existing stock of fireworks in Delhi and
the NCR and, if that is not possible, take measures to transport E
the stocks outside Delhi and the NCR.
(12) The suspension of permanent licences as directed by the
order dated 11th November, 2016 is lifted for the time being.
This might require a review after Diwali depending on the ambient
air quality post Diwali. However, it is made explicit that the sale F
of fireworks by the permanent licensees must conform to the
directions given above and must be fully in compliance with tbc
Explosives Rules. The permanent licences were issued by PESO
and therefore the responsibility is on PESO to ensure compliance.
(13) While lifting the suspension on the permanent licences G
already granted, these licensees are put on notice for Dnssebra
and Diwali in 2018 that they would· be permitted to possess and
sell only 50% of the quantity permitted in 2017 and that this would
substantially reduce over the next couple of years. The permanent
licensees arc at liberty to file objections to this proposed direction H
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 11 S.C.R.

A within 30 days from today and thereafter the objections if any
would be heard and decided. If no objections are filed, this
direction would become absolute without any further reference
to any licensee.
(14) Since there is a lack of clarity on the safety limits of various
B metals and constituents used in fireworks, a research study must
be jointly carried out by the CPCB and the FDRC laying down
appropriate standards for ambient air quality in relation to the
bursting of fireworks and the release of their constituents in the
air. While Schcijulc VII of the Environment (Protection) Rules,
1986 docs deal with several metals, but as it is seen that there
c arc several other metals or constituents of fireworks that have
not been studied by the CPCB and no standards have been laid
down with regard to the concentration of these metals or
constituents in the ambient air. The CPCB has assured that it
will complete the exercise by 15th September, 2017 but keeping
D in mind its tra~k record subsequent to the order dated 11th
November, 2016 this docs not seem possible. Therefore, time is
granted to the CPCB to come out with definite standards on or
before 30th September, 2017.
(15) In any event, a research study also needs to be conducted
E on the impact of bursting fireworks during Dussehra and Diwali
on the health of the people. A Committee is appointed to be chaired
by the Chairperson of the CPCB and consisting of officers at the
appro11riate level from the National Physical Laboratory, Delhi,
the Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences, Timarpur,
Delhi, the Indian Institute of Technology-Kanpur, scientists from
F the State Pollntion Control Boards, the Fire Development and
Research Centre, Sivakasi and Nagpur and the National
Environment Engineering Research Institute (NEERI)
nominated by the Chairperson of the CPCB to submit a report in
this regard preferably on or before 31" December, 2017.
G (16) Keeping in mind the adverse effects of air pollution, the
human right to breathe clean air and the human right to health,
the Central Government and other authorities should consider
encouraging display fireworks through community participation
rather than individual bursting of fireworks. JPara 71] [853-E-II;
H
854-A-H; 855-A-H; 856-A-G)
ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 827

Arjun Gopal v. Union of India (2017) 1 SCC 412; Noise A
Pollution (11 in Re. (2005) 5 SCC 733 : [2005] 1 Suppl.
SCR 624; Sadar Bazar Fire Works (Pucca Shop)
Association v. Pankaj Traders & Ors. SLP (C) Nos.
17327-28/1993; Consumer Education & Research
Centre v. Union of India (1995) 3 SCC 42 : (1995] 1
B
SCR 626; Occupational Health & Safety Assn. v. Union
of India (2014) 3 SCC 547 : [2014] 4 SCR 10; Ve/lore
Citizens. Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC
647 : [1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 241 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
c
c2011) 1 sec 412 referred to Para3
[i005] 1 Suppl. SCR 624 referred to Para 20
(1995] 1 SCR 626 referred to Para 63
[2014] 4 SCR 10 referred to Para 64
[1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 241 referred to Para 66 D
CNIL 0Rl!JINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 728
of2015
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Gopal Sankaranarayan, Ms. Pooja Dhar, Zeeshan Diwan, Advs. E
for the Petitioners
Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, Anil Grover, AAG, A.K. Sinha,
C.A. Sundaram, P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advs., Ajay Shanna, S.W.A. Qadri,
D.N. Gobardhan,Amit Sharma, Saeed Qailri, GS. Makker, B. Krishna
Prasad, R.K. Rathorc, Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Ritesh Kumar, Ms.Binu
F
Tamta, Ms. Vimla Sinha, B.V. Bairam Das, Ms. Rohini Musa, Sachin
Mittal, Sagar Kothari, Ms. Mansi Bhatia,Ms.Prachi Goel, Raj iv Rekhani,
Yogender Handoo, Ms. Charu Wali Khanna, Chirag M. Shroff,
Dharmcndra Singh Pal, Ms. Sarla Chandra, Mrs. V.D. Khanna,
M.A. Chinnasamy, Ms. C. Rubavathi, P. Raja Ram, V. Senthil Kumar,
Mis Corporate Law Group, Anish R. Shah, Vijay Panjwani, Dcbojit G
Borkakati, M. Balashivudu, Piyush Hans, Satish Kumar, Sanjay Kumar
Viscn, Govind Narayan Kaushik, Dr. Kailash Chand, Rajiv Jain (in-
pcrson) for the Respondents

H
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MADAN B. LO KUR, J. I. A large number of disparate prayers·
have been made in this public interest litigation initiated by the petitioners
under Article32 of the Constitution, but for the time being we are only
concerned with the first prayer. This is to the effect that this Court may
B issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to
ban the use of fireworks, sparklers and minor explosives in any form,
during fostivals or otherwise.
2. The public interest relief sought for is required to be considered
from two perspectives: firstly, from preventing air pollution through the
bursting of fireworks and secondly, by invoking the provisions of the
c Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, 2008 framed thereunder
for preventing air pollution by restricting the possession and sale of
fireworks in the National Capital Region.
Fireworks and air pollution in 2016
3. The prayer for a complete prohibition on the sale of fireworks
D due to pollution in the air caused by the bursting of fireworks was
considered at an jnterim stage by this Cow'\ and a detailed order passed
on 11 '"November, 2016.' The manufacturers and suppliers of fireworks
primarily based in Sivakasi (Tamil Nadu) moved an application on or
about 5'" July, 2017 for modification of that interim order. The modification
E application is registered as I.A. No. 52448 of2017 and we now propose
to decide that application.
4. The background for the interim order passed on 11" November,
2016 is that Diwali was celebrated in 2016 on 30'' October. On the next
day, it was discovered that PM,,, levels in the air had crossed 700 µg/m 3
being among the highest levels recorded in the world and about 29 times
F
above the standards laid down by the World Health Organization (WHO).
We need not delve into the details given in the order since there is no
dispute that the air in Delhi and in most parts of the National Capital
Region (NCR) was stiflingly polluted. This resulted in many falling sick
and others having to purchase face masks for personal use and install
G air purifiers in buildings.
5. The conclusion that the air in the NCR and particularly in Delhi
was polluted is not only based on the above information but is also based
on the statutory standards or the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
laid down in India. The standards are in Schedule Vil of the Environment
H I Arjun Gopal V. Union oflndia, (2017) I sec 412
ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 829
(MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

(Protection) Rules, 1986. Broadly stated the presence of PM,_, should A
range between 40 and 60 µg/m 3 and the presence of PM 10 should range
between 60 and I 00 µg/m 3 • For the purposes of a lay person
understanding this, it would be enough to say that air quality index or
AQI is dependent on eight pollutants and the categorization based on the
presence of these pollutants is as follows:
B
AOI Range Category
0-50 Good
51-100 Satisfactory
101-200 Moderatelv polluted
201-300 Poor
301-400 Verv voor c
401-500 Severe
In Delhi, during November 2016 the AQI was way above 500 on several
days and had even crossed 700 the day after Diwali. The standards laid
down in Schedule VII of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 are
as follows: D
SCHEDULE VII
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

S. No. Pollutant Time Concentration in Ambient Air
weighted
Avera Pl': E
Industrial, Ecologically Methods of
Residential, Sensitive measurement
Rural and Acea (notified
Other Arca by Central
Government)
(Ii <2) (3) (4) <5) (6).
I. Sulphur Annual"' 50 20 - Improved West F
Dioxide and Gacke
(502), 24hours•• 80 80 - Ultraviolet
µg!m' fluorescence
2. Nitrogen Annual* 40 30 - Modified Jacob
Dioxide & Hochhciscr
(NO,), 24 hours•• 80 80 (N a-Arscnitc)
µg!m' - Chcmilun1incsc
G
cncc
3. Particulate Annual• 60 60 - Gravimetric
Matter - TOEM
(size less 24 .!tours•• 100 . 100 - Bctaattcnuation
than I Oµm)
or PM ru
3
Ul!/m
H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (20 l 7] l l S.C.R.

A 4. Particulate Annual• 40 40 - Grdvi1netrtc
I Matter - TOEM
I
(size less: 24 hours•• 60 60 - Beta
I than
attenuation
2.Sµm) or
PM25 I
'""m' !
B 5. (},one (03) 8 hours•• I; I 00 !00 - UV photo1nctric
µfl'm' - Clle1nilwnine.sL~
I hour** iI 180 180 encc
- (1lc1nical
I Method
Lead (Pb) Annual* 0.50 0.50 - AAS/ICP
6. µg/1n3
c 24 hours•• 1.0 1.0
tndhod aner
satnpling on
EPM 2000 or
equivalent liltcr
paper
- ED-XRF using
Tcllon filter
D 7. Carbon 8 hours•* 02 02 - Non Dispersive.
Moooxide Infra Rod
(CO) 1 hour•• 04 04 (NDIR)
mi;'m3 S~Ctl'OSL'O~~
8. A1n1nonia Annual* I 00 100 - Ou:1.nihunincsc
(NH3) cncc
µg/in3 24 hours•• 400 400 - lndopheaol blue
E 1ncthod
9. Benzene Annual* 05 05 - Gas
(C•fJ;' chromatography
~·wm basc-d
1.:ontinuous
analyzer
- Adsorption and
F Desol]ltion
fullowed by GC
analvsis
10. Benzo(a) Annual* I) 1 01 - Solvent
Pyrene t..'Xtraction
(BaP)- fullowedby
particulate HPLC/GC
G phase only, analys~
""'m'
II. Am..."'11iC Annual* 06 06 - AAS/ICP
(A•), µgim3 method after
sampling on
EPM 2000or
equivalent filter
H ""~r
ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 831
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

A
12. Nickel Annual* 20 20 • AAS/ICP
(Ni). µg/nl 3
I method after
san1pling on
EPM 2000 or
equivalent filter
I naner

*Annual arithmetic mean of minimum 104 measurements in a year at a B
particular site taken twice a week 24 hourly at uniform intervals.
•• 24 hourly or 08 hourly or 1 hourly monitored values, as applicable,
shall be complied with 98% of the time in a year, 2% of the time, they
may exceed the limits but not on two consecutive days of monitoring.
Notes. - Whenever and wherever monitoring results on two consecutive
c
days of monitoring exceed the limits specified above for the respective
category, it shall be considered adequate reason to institute regular or
continuous monitoring and further investigations.
6. In the backdrop of these staggeringly high PM,, levels and D
other information provided by learned counsel appearing for the parties,
including damage to health by breathing in such highly polluted air, this
Court directed the Union of India on 11 '"November, 2016 to:
(i) Suspend all such licences as permit sale of fireworks, wholesale
and retail within the territory of the National Capital Region
(NCR). E

(ii) The suspension shall remain in force till further orders of this
Court.
(iii) No such licences shall be granted or renewed till further orders.
7. The directions given by this Court have been implemented and F
arc presently in operation. It was further directed that the Central Pollution
Control Board (CPCB) will study and prepare a report on the harmful
effects of the materials currently used in the manufacture of fireworks.
The report was to be submitted to this Court within a period of three
months. Notwithstanding the aforesaid order the CPCB has not furnished 0
the report.
Application for modification of the Interim order
8. Feeling aggrieved by the continuance of the interim order passed
on 11" November, 2016 the concerned manufacturer and supplier of
fireworks moved I.A. No.52448 of 2017 for modification/vacation of H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I I S.C.R.

A the said order. The applicant was supported by other manufacturers and
suppliers.
9. It is stated in the application for modification or vacation of the
interim order that there are 82 l fireworks industries situated in and around
Sivakasi and they produce and supply fireworks and sparklers all over
B the country for festivals such as Diwali, Dusschra, Christmas, Ramzan
and other important ceremonies. It is further stated that these industries
directly employ about 2 lakh people and in addition, about 3 lakhs arc
employed in ancillary and subsidiary industries connected with the
production and supply of fireworks.
c I0. According to the applicant the National Green Tribunal {NGT)
rendered a decision on IO" November, 2016 in Original Application No.21
of 2014 and other >onnected matters in which it is recorded that there
are seven major contributors of air pollution in the NCR and these arc:
l. Construction activity and carriage of construction material.
D 2. Burning of Municipal Solid Waste and other waste.
3. Burning of agriculture residue.
4. Vehicular Pollution.
5. Dust on the roads.
E 6. Industrial and power house emission including fly-ash.
7. Emissions from Hot-Mix Plants imd Stone Crushers.
In other words, the submission of the applicant was that fireworks arc
not a major contributor of air pollution. We may, however, add that
F during the course of submissions, it was accepted by learned counsel for
all the parties that whether or not the bursting of fireworks is a major
cause of air pollution in the NCR, it is certainly one of the causes of air
pollution, particularly in Delhi.
11. The applicant also referred to and relied upon a study conducted
G by the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (IIT-K) in January 2016.
The study is titled "Comprehensive Study on Air Pollution and Green
House Gases in Delhi". The study was submitted in the form of a report
to the Department of Environment of the Government ofNCT of Delhi
and the Delhi Pollution Control Committee. The study conducted by IlT-
K suggests that the sources of PM,,, are several but the bursting of
H
ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 833
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

fireworks is not one of them. We have not been informed whether any A
use has been made (if at all) of the study.
12. In addition to the aforesaid, the applicant also relied upon a
view expressed by the CPCB before this Court to the effect that poor
wind speed was one of the causes of smog over Delhi pa1ticularly in the
winter months. It was also submitted that there are certain other B
geographical and meteorological conditions such as temperature, wind
rlirection and boundary layer that contribute to the presence of smog in
Delhi.
13. It was also submitted that the burning of crops or stubbles in
Punjab and Pakistan also caused air pollution in Delhi and indeed this c
was the case in October-November 2016. A reference was made to a
brief write up along with an image, released by the Earth Observatory
of the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) and dated 2'~
November, 2016, stating that, "Punjab ranks among the nation's top wheat
and rice producers. For a few weeks in October and November, Punjab
also becomes a major producer of air pollution." A reference was also D
made to a report in the New York Times by Gceta Anand on 2""
November, 2016 that an estimated 32 million tons ofleftover straw from
rice harvests were burnt in Punjab and Haryana, in spite of an NGT
direction against this, and this led to plumes of smoke blackening the
skies in the capital. E
14. The applicant drew our attention to the poor air quality in
Delhi on the days prior to Diwali 2016 and for more than a month
thereafter. A comparison was drawn with the air quality recorded by the
CPCB in Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Kamataka and West Bengal to
suggest that on some days prior to Diwali, the air quality was not F
particularly healthy in· select cities in these States thereby suggesting
that the air is generally polluted in different parts of the country and the
bursting of fireworks may marginally add (ifat all) to air pollution. In
this context it was submitted that the bursting of fireworks takes place
only for a couple of days around Diwali and other festive occasions and
that cannot by itsclfrcsult in a substantial deterioration in air quality all G
over the country including Delhi. The bw'Sting of fireworks around Diwali
w.ould have only a temporary and transitory impact and not any long
lasting effect. Therefore, the bursting of fireworks around Diwali does
not explain high PM,,, levels in Delhi more than even a month after
Diwali.
H
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R.

A 15. During the course of submissions it was pointed out that the
Dahi Pdlution Contrd Committee ha:! issued adirectionon 8'h November,
2016 under the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, I 981 banning the bursting of fireworks at all times except on religious
occasions. It wqs submitted that this ban is still in force and therefore it
cannot be said that the terrible quality ofair in Delhi in November 20 I 6
B
and thereafter is attributable only to bursting of fireworks - there are
several other fa~tors. It was submitted that on an overall consideration
of the issues, the ban and sale of fireworks in Delhi and in the NCR
should be modified ifnot lifted.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioners gave us a Note on the
c harmful and deleterious effects of some of the chemicals used in
fireworks. We have no doubt and indeed no learned counsel had any.
doubt that the excessive use of chemicals in fireworks could have serious
and deleterious health effects, particularly among children. We are,
therefore, proceeding on this basis without reference to the Note since
D there is no disptlte on this aspect. With this agreement in mind (which
has always been there), we had passed an order on 3 I" July. 2017 after
hearing learned counsel as well as Dr. A.B. Akolkar. Member Secretary
of the CPCB and Mr. K. Sundershan, Deputy Chief Controller of
Explosives, Sivakasi to the effect that fireworks manufactured by the
respondents shall not contain antimony. lithium, mercury, arsenic <md
E lead in any form whatsoever. We had also directed that it would be the
responsibility of PESO to ensure compliance particularly in Sivakasi.
We had noted that there was some doubt about the health hazards that
could be caused by the use of strontium in fireworks and adjourned the
matter to hear submissions in that regard.
F Steps taken to reduce air pollution
17. Learned counsel for the parties drew our attention to certain
steps that have been taken to curb air pollution in Delhi around the time
ofDiwali.
18. The Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO)
0
had laid the foundation stone of the Fireworks Development Research
Centre (FDRC) on 28'' November, 2004. This is a specialized Centre
which has been operating now for quite some time. The functions and
activities of the Centre are the following:

H
ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 835
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

l. Research & Development of eco friendly fireworks. A
2. Testing of raw materials used in the manufacturing of fireworks.
3. Mechanisation of hazardous process in fireworks industry.
4. Testing of general performance and sound level of fireworks.
5. Rendering guidance for development of new products and B
standardization of general products.
6. Improvement of quality control and quality assurance.
7. Imparting training to supervisors and workers of fireworks
factories.
c
8. Investigation of accidents.
19. It was brought to our notice that the FDRC has done some
good work though related only to a few fireworks that are colloquially
referred to as (a) Atom Bomb, (b) Chinese crackers (no reference to
China at all), (c) Maroons and (d) Garland crackers. This study and D
research relates to the sound caused by the bursting of these fireworks
and the light and colour emitted by them. No work has been done or
study conducted at all with reference to pollution in the air caused by the
bursting of these or other fireworks. We were informed (somewhat
faintly) that this is really the job of the CPCB but the FDRC is willing to
E
extend full cooperation to the CPCB in arriving at some definite standards.
20. It was also pointed out that this Court had passed an order on
l S'h July, 2005 in Noise Pollutio11 (VJ, iii Re.' to the following effect:
(i) Firecrackers
"174. 1. On a comparison of the two systems i.e. the present . F
system of evaluating firecrackers on the basis of noise levels,
and the other where the firecrackers shall be evaluated on the
basis of chemical composition, we feel that the latter method is
more practical and workable in Indian circumstances. It shall be
followed unless and until replaced by a better system. 0
2. The Department of Explosives (DOE) shall undertake
necessary research activity for-the purpose and come out with .
the chemical formulae for each type or category or class of
1
(200SJ s sec 733
H
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] ll S.C.R.

A firccrack~rs. DOE shall specify the proportion/composition as
well as the maximum permissible weight of every chemical used
in manufacturing firecrackers.
3. The Dqpartment of Explosives may divide the firecrackers
into two categories - (i) sound-emitting firecrackers, and (ii)
13 colour/liglit-emitting firecrackers.
4. There shall be a complete ban on bursting sound-emitting
firecrackers between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. It is not necessary to
impose restrictions as to time on bursting of colour/light-emitting
firecrackers.
c 5. Every manufacturer shall on the box of each firecracker
mention details of its chemical contents and that it satisfies the
requirement as laid down by DOE. In case of a failure on the
part of the manufacturer to mention the details or in cases where
the contents of the box do not match the chemical formulae as
D stated on the box, the manufacturer may be held liable.
6. Firecraqkcrs for the purpose of export may be manufactured
bearing higher noise levels subjcctto the following conditions: (1)
the manufacturer should be permitted to do so only when he has
an export order with him and not othe1wise; (ii) the noise levels
E for these firecrackers should conform to the noise standards
prescribed in the country to which they are intended to be exp01ted
as per the export order; (iii} these firecrackers should have a
different colour packing, from those intended to be sold in India;
(iv) they must carry a declaration printed thereon something like
"not for sale in India" or "only for export to country AB" and so
F on.
But again these directions were confined to the sound (or noise), colour
and light emitted by the bursting of fireworks and had no reference to air
pollution.
21. We were also informed that this Court had passed an order
G
on 16'" October, 2015 in the present petition to the following effect:
"The Union Governments and all the State Governments will
give wide publicity both in print and Electronic media to the ill
effects of fireworks and advise people accordingly.

H
ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 837
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

We also direct the Teachers/ Lecturers/ Assistant Professors/ A
Professors of the Schools and Colleges to educate the students
about the ill effects of the fireworks."
In other words, directions have been issued by this Court from time to
time to prevent air pollution around the time ofDiwali and to make people
aware of the health hazards of bursting fireworks. B
22. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Government of
N"CT of Delhi on 26~ August 2017 in which it is stated that school children
are being info1med about the hazards and ill-effects of indiscriminate
bursting of fireworks by encouraging participation of schools in 'anti-
fire crackers' campaigns. Through these campaigns, participation ofall c
stakeholders and eco-clubs is expected and schools arc advised to
organize innovative awareness programmes on the issue.
23. It is further stated that the Directorate of Education has
advised all heads of schools to sensitize students and staff members
about the ill-effects of bursting fireworks and to organize programmes D
fot motivating students to "say no to crackers" and to utilize safe
alternatives such as lights, flowers, paintings, etc. Additionally, heads of
schools have been directed to personally address students to adopt safer
measw·es to celebrate Diwali. It is stated that since 20 l 0, circulars
have been issued by the Directorate to spread the message of"Say No
to Crackers". E
24. Finally, it is stated that on 24'" August, 2017 the Directorate of
Edncation has issued a circular to all heads of schools falling under the
Directorate ofEducation to sensitize students and staff members about
the ill-effects of bursting fireworks.
F
25. ·An affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Commissioner
of Police in Delhi on28'"August2017, in which it isstatedthattemporary
licences for stocking fireworks can be granted by a Magistrate by virtue
of Section 146 of the Delhi Police Act read with Section 4(c) of the
Explosives Act. It is sfated that the temporary licences are granted for
24 days, that is, two days before Dussehra and two days after Diwali. In G
any case, no temporary licence is granted for more than 30 days. In
addition, it is stated that in the case of temporary sheds, a licence is
granted for not more than 15 days in terms of the Explosives Rules.

H
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] l l S.C.R.

A 26. It is stated on behalf of the Commissioner of Police in Delhi
that the maximum quantity of fireworks permissible is I 00 kg in terms of
Division 2, sub-division 2 of Schedule I of the Explosives Rules in respect
of the fireworks mentioned therein (high hazard fireworks) and 500 kg
under Division 2, sub-division I of Schedule I of the Explosives Rules in
respect of the firfworks mentioned therein (low hazard fireworks).
B
27. The mandatory conditions laid down in the Explosives Rules
are followed subject to the orders passed by this Court in Sadar Bazar
Fire Works (Pu~ca Shop) Association v. Panktlj Traders & Ors. 3
The order passed in this case on I'' November. 199 3 reads as follows :

c "It appears that after this Court's order of 22"" October. 1993,
the authorities have issued a circular dated 26. I 0.93 imposing
ce1tain conditions in regard to which the petitioners have no
objection, save and except Condition ii(a) which provides that
the premises to be used for sale of crackers, etc. shall be at a
minimum distance of 15 mtrs. from any such premises used for
D storage of similar explosives and hazardous materials. After some
discussion at the Bar, Mr. Lahiri, the learned counsel for the
respondents, states that appropriate instructions will be issued
so that temporary licences arc not denied on the ground that the
cracker shops are adjacent to each other. We have also indicated
E to Mr. Lahiri that what was intended was that if there is any
shop adja~ent to the shops in respect of which licence is sought
wherein any other highly inflammable and combustible material
is being sold, that may be a factor which may weigh with the
authority. In view of the statement made by Mr. Lahiri, we do
not think it necessary to issue any direction. The proceedings
F will stand terminated with liberty to mention if there is any
difficulty. The application for temporary licences should be
processed without delay. The parties may be advised to complete
the forms wherever there are deficiencies. With these
observations, the Special Leave Petitions arc disposed of."
G 28. It is fmther submitted that permanent licences have been
granted to 20 licensees as on date in Delhi and these have been suspended
in view of the order passed by this Comt on 11" November. 2016 (the·
corresponding figure for the NCR minus Delhi has not been given to
us).
H 'SLP(C)Nos.17327-28/1993
ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 839
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

29. With regard to the grant of temporary licences, it is stated that A
in 2016 a total of I 073 applications were received for temporary licences
and only 968 temporary licences were issued for a period of 24 days
each (the corresponding figure for the NCR minus Delhi has not been
given to us).
30. We were 'informed by the learned counsel for the B
Commissioner of Police that there is a prohibition on bursting fireworks
between I 0.00 pm and 06.00 am and a prohibition on the bursting of
fireworks in silence zones, that is an area not less than I 00 metres around
hospitals, educational institutions, courts, religious places or any other
area declared as such by the competent District Deputy Commissioner
of Police. c
31. An affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the CPCB on
29'" August, 2017 in which it is stated that during Diwali day. the level of
metals/ constituents of fireworks indicated by PESO, that is aluminium,
sulphur, potassium and barium arc elevated. Some other constituents,
such as titanium, iron, copper, zinc, strontium, antimony and chlorine D
were found to be in higher concentration during Diwali day as compared
to other days. But the higher level of these constituents is observed only
for one day. According to the CPCB, to regulate and minimize the
adverse effects of fireworks, smoke and pollutants on human health, the
following actions would be of assistance: E
a. Constituents those mentioned in the specifications of PESO
(year 2008) may only be permitted (Aluminium, Sulphur,
Potassium and Barium).
b. Other constituents unless permitted under specified notification,
if any, may not be permitted. F
c. Health advisories by authorized Medical Institutions for public
can be disseminated for public safoty.
32. With regard to our order of 31" July, 2017 on the use. of
strontium in fireworks, the CPCB is of the view that only strontium
chromate is ha1mful/ dangerous to human health and may cause problems G
with bone growth, skin rashes, skin problems and possibly lung cancer.
The safe limits of strontium in the ambient air have not been mentioned
by the CPCB.
33. On our asking, as a result of a submission made by learned
counsel for the petitioners, the Union of India filed a Status Report on H
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] l I S.C.R.

A 31"August2017 with regard to the import of fireworks from China. It is
stated that the import of any explosives containing sulphur or sulphurate
in admixture with any chlorate is banned vide notification GSR No. 64(E)
dated 27'" January, 1992 on the manufacture, possession, use, sale etc.
of any explosives. However, an exception has been made for import in
respect of the following:
B
(a) in sll!lall quantities for scientific purposes;
(b) for the purpose of manufacturing heads of matches;
(c) for use in toy amorces (paper caps for toy pistols): or

c (d) in percussion caps for use of Railway Fog Signals.
34. It is further stated that Chinese origin fire crackers generally
contain the above banned chemicals and are, therefore, prohibited from
import. In this regard, it is stated that approximatcly435 tons of Chinese
origin fireworks have already been destroyed by the officials of the Joint
Chief Controller of Explosives, West Circle. Mumbai, but the period of
D
destruction and the manner of destruction has not been stated.
The Explosiv~ Act and Rules framed thereunder
35. The other perspective relates to licences issued for possession ·
and sale of fireworks under the Explosives Act, 1884 and Rules framed
E thereunder and continuing the ban on the sale of fireworks or limiting the
possession and sale of fireworks. For this purpose, it is necessary to
appreciate the scheme of the Explosives Act and the Rules so that
appropriate remedial steps can be taken in accordance with the provisions
of the law.

F 36. Section 4 of the Explosives Act, 1884 (for short 'the Act')
contains various definitions. Section 4(d) defines the word 'explosive'
and it includes, amongst others, fireworks. In this context, the classification
of explosives is given in Schedule I to the Explosives Rules, 2008 (for
short 'the Rules') and Class 7 thereof relates to fireworks which are
categorized into divisions and classes. This reads as follows:
G
Class 7 - Fireworks Class
"(!)Fireworks Class has four divisions, namely, Division l,
Division2, Division 3, and Division 4.
(2) Division 1 comprises fireworks composition that is to say,
H any chemical compound or mechanically mixed preparation of
. ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 841
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

an explosive or inflammable nature, which is used for the purpose A
of making manufactured firework, and is not an explosive of
classes l ,2,3,4,5 & 6, any star and any coloured fire composition:
Provided that a substantially constructed hermetically closed metal
case, containing not more than 500 grammes of coloured fire
composition of such a nature, as not to be liable to spontaneous B
ignition shall be deemed to be "a manufactured firework" and
not a "firework composition".
(3) Division 2 fireworks comprises manufactnred fireworks i.e.,
to say any explosive of class 1,2.3,4 or 6 and any fireworks
composition when such explosive or composition is enclosed in c
any case or contrivance or other articles specially adapted, for
the production of pyrotechnic effect for pyrotechnic signal or
sound signals.
(4) Division 2 fireworks comprises 3 sub-divisions, namely, sub-
division l, sub-division 2 and sub-division 3. D
(5) Sub-division I of Division 2 fireworks comprises low hazard
fireworks which, in the opinion of Chief Controller are relatively
innocuous in themselves and are not liable to explode violently or
all at once, e.g., sparklers [Chinese crackers, serpents, etc.].
(6) Sub-division 2 ofDivision 2 offireworks comprises high hazard E
fireworks which, in the opinion of Chief Controller, present a
special hazard to a person, e.g., rockets, shells, maroons, wheels,
barrages, fountains, illumination pieces, distress signals,
pyrotechnic devices etc.
(7) Sub-division 3 of Division 2 fireworks comprises such F
fireworks, which arc assembled at site purely for the purpose of
display.
(8) Division 3 comprises any explosive contrivance required for
the manufacture of manufactured fireworks, e.g., quick match
fuse, micro cord fuse, etc. G
(9) Division 4 comprises manufactured fireworks for use of
Armed Forces of the Union."
37. Section 5 of the Act confers the power to make Rules as to
licensing of the manufacture, possession, use, sale, transport, import and
H
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20 l 7] l 1 S.C.R.

A export of explosives. Quite naturally, the Rules framed under the Act
also deal with fireworks.
38. For the present, we are concerned only with ce11ain provisions
of the Rules. Rule 2(19) defines "display fireworks" as a group of
authorized manufactured fireworks assembled at site. solely for the
B purpose of display.
39. Rule 2(24) defines "fireworks" as low hazard explosive
comprising of any composition or device manufactured with a view to
produce coloured fire or flame, light effect, sound effect, smoke effect'
(coloured or natural), or combination of such effects and includes fog-
c signals. fuses, rockets, shells, percussion caps.
40. Rule 2(25) defines "fireworks composition" as any chemical
compound or mechanically mixed preparation of an explosive or
inflammable substance that is used for the purpose of making
manufactured fireworks and is not included in any other class of
D explosives, and includes any star or colored fire composition.
41. Finally, Ruic 2(32) defines "manufactured fireworks" as low
hazard explosive contrivance containing explosive or combination of
different classes, namely, Class 1 or Class 2 or Class 3 or Class 4 or
Class 6 given in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of these rules or any explosives
E that come under Division 2 or Division 3 or Division 4 under Class 7
given under the said Part.
42. Ruic 4 qeals with the classifications of explosives and as far
as fireworks are concerned, they are categorized into sound emitting
fireworks, colour or light emitting fireworks, display fireworks and
fireworks for export purposes. We are concerned only with the first
F
three categories of fireworks and they are explained as follows:
"4. Classification of explosives.-( I) For the purposes of these
rules, the explosives shall be classified in the manner specified in
Schedule I. The dual system of classification shall be retained
for five years from the date of commencement of these Rules,
G
thereafter only UN classification shall be applicable.
(2) Jfany explosive falls within the limits of more than one class
as defined in Schedule I, it shall be deemed to belong exclusively
to the last number of such classes.

H
ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 843
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

(3) The fireworks are classified into the following categories A
depending upon the desired pyrotechniquc effect : -
(i) Sound emitting fireworks.-Fireworks with sound level not
exceeding 125 dB (AI) or 145 dB (C) pk at 4 meters distance
from the point ofbursting. For individual fire-<: racker constituting
the series Goincd fire-crackers), the above mentioned limit be B
reduced by 5 log I O(N) dB, where N = number of crackers
joined together;
(ii) Colour or light emitting fircworks.-such fireworks which
emit colour or light and having sound level not exceeding 90 dB
(AI) at 4 m distance from the point of bursting; c
(iii) Display Fireworks.-Any product of fireworks assembled
at the site for the purpose of display including shell of diameter
exceeding 25 mm, multiple shots or cake products ofany diameter
exceeding 25 nos., of shots in a product and lance network or
other products as approved by the Chief Controller." D
43. Ruic 9(5) provides that possession of fireworks, not exce.eding
one hundred kilogram for own use and not for sale does not require any
licence to be issued, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 7 of the
Rules.
44. Rule 15 relates to marking on explosives and packages. As E
per sub-Rule (i), (ii) and (iii) thereof, packages of fireworks shall contain
the following markings in a conspicuous indelible character, by means of
a stamping, embossing or painting: The relevant portion of this Rule
. reads thus:
"15. Marking on explosives and packages.- F
( I) Marking on packages. - (i) The outer package shall be
marked in conspicuous indelible character, by means of a
stamping, embossing or painting with-
(a) the word "EXPLOSIVES";
G
(b) the name of authorised explosive;
(c) the number if any of the Class and the Di vision including
sub-division to which it belongs;
(d) the safety distance category of explosive;
H
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 11 S..C.R.

A (e) the name of the manufacturer;
(f) identification numberofthe package:
(g) the n¢t weight of explosives;
(h) gross weight of the package;
B (i) date of manufacture and batch number;
U) UN Classification and UN Identification number (for export
packages);
(k) in case of plastic explosives, the words "marking agent added
as per International Civil Aviation Organisation ResolutionA27-
c
8" referred in sub-clause (iv) of clause ( c) under sub-rule (2) of
rule lO; and
(I) a paper slip containing the above details shall be kept inside
the package:
D Provided that in the case of safety fuse or fireworks, clauses
(a) and (!) may be omitted and the words "safety fuse" or
"Fireworks" shall be marked.
(ii) In case of fireworks, the names of the items, for example -
amorces, paper caps, serpents eggs, etc., as appropriate shall be
E marked.
(iii) Evecy manufacturer shall on the box of each fire cracker
shall mention details ofits chemical content, sound level and that
it satisfies requirements as laid down by the Chief Controller.
Fire-cracker meant for export shall have a different colour
F packing from those intended to be sold in India and a clear print
indicating that they are not to be sold in India."
Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 15 of the Rules is also of some importance and this
reads as fo Hows:
"(4) Marking on fireworks.- In case of fireworks, explosive
G composition, quantity of such composition, whether sound emitting
crackers or colour or light emitting crackers, sound level, a caution
or warning indicating the name of the item, manufacturer's name,
method of firing and precautions to be taken both in words and
pictorial view shall be printed on each piece of fireworks and
cardboard box and where adequate space is not available on the
H
ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 845
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

fireworks, such caution or warning shall be printed on a separate A
label and inserted in ·the smallest packet or carton."
45. Chapter VII of the Rules relates to special provisions for
possession, sale and use of explosives. Rule 75 therein provides for a
permit to be issued for temporary possession of manufactured fireworks
in excess of the licensed quantity and this provides that a permit for a B
period not exceeding thirty days may be granted by the licensing authority
to a licensee for fireworks shop to possess one-third in excess of the
licensed quantity on receipt of the appropriate fees.
46. Rule 84 of the Rules provides for temporary shops for
possession and sale of fireworks during festivals and this reads: c
"84. Temporary shops for possession and sale of fireworks during
festivals.-During festivals, the District Magistrate may issue
temporary licences for possession and sale of fireworks in a
temporary shop subject to the following conditions, namely : -
( 1) The fireworks shall be kept in a shed made ofnon-flammable D
material, which is closed and secured so as to prevent
unauthorised persons having access thereto.
(2) The sheds for possession and sale of fireworks shall be at a
distance of at least three metres from each other and fifty metres
from any protected work.
E
(3) The sheds shall not face each other.
(4) No oil burning lamps, gas lamps or naked lights shall be used
in the shed or within the safety distance of the sheds. Electrical
lights, if used, shall be fixed to the wall or ceiling and shall not be
suspended by flexible wire. Switches for each shop shall be fixed
F
rigidly to the wall and a master switch shall be provided for each
row of sheds.
(5) Display of fireworks shall not be allowed within fifty metres
of any shed.
(6) In one cluster not more than fifty shops shall be permitted."
G
47. Chapter VIII of the Rules relates to the grant or refusal of
approval, no objection certificate, licence, certificates, amendment,
transfer and renewal oflicences. Rule 99 therein provides that licences
and certificates, for a specific purpose may be granted by the authorities,
specified in Part I of Schedule IV of the Rules.
H
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] ll S.C.R.

A 48. Rule I 06 provides for the period of validity of the licence
granted under the Rule while Ruic 113 provides for documents to be
furnished for approval and grant of a licence and the relevant Form
required to be filled up by an applicant.
49. Schedule IV referred to in Rule 99 of the Rules, particularly
B Part I thereofis required to be read with Ruic 113 of the Rules and from
a perusal of items 5 and 6 thereof, the limits for possession and sale of
fireworks, the relevant licensing application form and the licensing authority
arc indicated.
50. Learned counsel for the applicant informed us through a note
c that as of date, in the NCR, PESO has issued 435 permanent licences
and in Delhi alone, PESO has issued 175 permanent licences, thereby
making a total of 610 permanent licences. It is further stated that the
stocks in hand of the fireworks in the N.CR both under permanent and
temporary licences is 50,00.000 kg in the NCR and 1,00,000 kg in Delhi.
D What more needs to be done
51. What is necessary now is to correlate air pollution with the
sale and bursting offireworks in Delhi and the NCR. There is no doubt
that the air we breathe gets polluted with the bursting of fireworks. The
extent of air pollution caused by bursting fireworks is not clear in the
E absence of empirical data - it could be severe or it could be marginal,
but it is there.
52. Have the steps already taken by the concerned authorities
reduced air pollution during Diwali'! It seems to us that the steps so far
taken by the Government ofNCTofDelhi are limited to issuing directions,
which is merely paperwork. Only general directions have been given in
F
the past to schools to sensitize the students and the staff as to the ill-
cffeets and health hazards of bursting fireworks. No specific plan of
. i1ction has been laid down by the Government of NCT of Delhi to make
children aware of the hazards of bursting fireworks and the existing
awareness campaigns have been allowed to drift over the last one year.
G There is no information on the success or failure of these campaigns.
53. The response of the Government ofNCT ofDelhi is lethargic
with the absence of any keenness to take proactive steps. This is
disconcerting. It is high time that governmental authorities realize that
the cost of ill health (particularly among children) is far greater in psycho-
H social terms than in financial and economic terms. The adage that
ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 847
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

'prevention is better than cure' is fully applicable in the present A
circumstances.
54. Similarly, the Delhi Police has issued directions that are difficult
to enforce such as restricting the time during which fireworks can be
burst. These are ad hoc mea~ures that might be workable (if at all) only
for the immediate future. We have not been informed of the impact of B
, such.directions or their implementation. · '
55. We must note that there has been no response from the States
within the NCR giving the impression that air pollution is not a problem
for the State Governments despite the ill-effects and health hazards of
bursting firewo.rks. c
56. There must be a concerted effort by the powers that be to
ensure awareness and sensitization of the people in Delhi and NCR,
particularly children, of the health hazards of indiscriminate use of
fireworks. Unless urgent steps are taken, there could be an adverse
impact on the health of children and this would be to nobody's benefit D
but to everybody's detriment. Anybody who lived in Delhi during Diwali
in 2016 and soon thereafter would have experienced 'the choking effects
of breathing in polluted air and the tremendous increase in the use and
sale of face masks t\!ld air purifiers. In the absence of any concerted
plan of action implemented by the governmental authorities, the residents
responded in an ad hoc manner by purchasing face masks and air E
purifiers. There is no doubt that an effective and longer lasting solution
1s necessary.
57. What has really disturbed us is that the CPCB was directed
on 11 ''November, 2016 to study and prepare a report within three months
on the harmful effects of the materials used in the manufacture of F
fireworks: It is astonishing that the CPCB has not conducted the study'
and prepared a report as directed. Apart from the fact that the CPCB
has not conducted any study, even otherwise, no standards have been
laid down by the CPCB which could give any indication of the acceptable
and permissible limit of constituent metals or chemicals used in fireworks
G
and released in the air, beyond which their presence would be harmful
·.or dangerous. There cannot be any donbt ihat the presence of certain
metals or chemicals in the air beyond a particular limit would be_
inadvisable but that limit is not known to anybody including the CPCB .
.Therefore, any discussion on the subject of whether there is an excessive
presence of a particular chemical in the air will not yield any result unless H
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] l l S.C.R.

A some authority lays down an acceptable standard of what is excessive
and what is not. Dr. Akolkar, Member Secretary of the CPCB had
informed us on 31" July, 2017 that the CPCB would be in a position to
lay down the standards by 15~ September, 2017. We do hope the CPCB
docs so -in any case as a part of the continuing mandamus principle laid
down by this Collrt, the matter is required to be followed up.
B
58. What is also worrying. apart from the absence of standards
or limits having been laid down by the CPCB, is that very little or no
attention seems t() have been paid by any of the governmental authorities
to the possible health hazards faced by children due to exposure to
chemicals in fireworks. The governmental authorities need to realize
c their responsibility regarding the care and protection of the health of the
people in Delhi and NCR and the importance of launching a sustained
campaign to reduce air pollution to manageable limits during Diwali and
the period immediately thereafter. The health of children should be of
foremost concern in this regard. It is, as submitted, only a matter of a
D few days of intense pollution but even that is capable of having long
term health effects. There are also short-term adverse consequences
of breathing in polluted air and even this cannot be overlooked by the
governmental authorities, particularly in the case of children.
59. On 31 '1 July, 2017 we had prohibited the use of five chemicals
E and their compounds in the manufacture of fireworks. These constituents
are antimony, lithium, mercury, arsenic and lead. We had left open the
issue of use of ~trontium and its compounds in the manufacture of
fireworks. During the course of submissions on the issue of whether the
use of strontium should be permitted in fireworks and the application for
modification or vacation of the interim order, our attention was drawn to
F an article in the Swarajya magazine, by one Srikanth Ramakrishnan
who reported that the National Environmental Engineering Research
Institute (NEERI) along with researchers from an organization based in
Austria, namely, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
{IJAS) had conducted a study whose results revealed that the majority
G of the pollution in Delhi comes from outside the NCT of Delhi and from
other areas in the NCR in Uttar Pradesh and Haryana. Therefore, no
matter what air quality standards are adopted in Delhi, pollution would
flow in from the neighbouring States in any case. The report prepared
by NEERI and the HAS has not been made available to us.

H
ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 849
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

60. Be that as it may, the CPCB has now concluded that only A
strontium chromate is harmful or dangerous to human health. Therefore,
we have no option but to prohibit the use of strontium chromate in the
manufacture of fireworks.
61. It was submitted by Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned counsel
appearing for one of the respondents that the best possible solution to B
the problem of air pollution in Delhi, allegedly due to the bursting of
fireworks, would be to constitute a Committee to advise this Court. It
was submitted that when the issue of noise pollution had surfaced, the
CPCB had set up the National Committee on Noise Pollution and Control
in 1997 which led to noise pollution standards being set. It was suggested
that a similar exercise may be undertaken to deal with the issue of air
c
pollution due to bursting of fireworks in Delhi. This was precisely the
purpose of issuing a direction to the CPCB on 11 'h November, 2016 but
that was not taken seriously. Therefore, in our opinion, the suggestion
dcserve.s acceptance and it is necessary to set up such a Committee
with the assistance and guidance of the CPCB and the FDRC. The D
Committee can quite effectively conduct a study along with assistance
and inputs from other bodies or organizations and make recommendations.
It may be appropriate to appoint a Committee including officers at the
appropriate level from the National Physical Laboratory, Delhi, the
Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences, Timarpur, Delhi,
E
the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, scientists from the State
Pollution Control Boards, the Fire Development and Research Centre,
Sivakasi and Nagpur and the National Environment Engineering Research
Institute (NEERI).
62. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that
the poor air quality in November 2016 justified the passing of the interim F
order on 1J 1h November, 2016 and there was no reason to vary that
order. Virulent air pollution is a cause of concern and the only remedy to
stop its ill effects is to continue the suspension oflicences for the sale of
fireworks in Delhi and in the NCR. It was submitted that if there is any
doubt regarding the effect of bursting fireworks on air pollution, and in G
the absence of any standards to measure the same, the safer course
would be to continue such suspension rather than risk the health oflarge
sections of people in Delhi and the NCR, particularly children.

H
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I l S.C.R.

A 63. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in
Co11sumer Ed11catio11 & Research Ce11tre v. U11io11 of J11dia 4 it was
held by this Court that the right to health, though of a worker, is a
fundamental right. We sec no real difference between the fundamental
right to health of a worker and the human right to health of any other
citizen of the country, particularly children who perhaps need more care
B
and attention. It was held in paragraph 24 of the Report:
'The right to health to a worker is an integral facet of meaningful
right to life, to have not only a meaningful existence but also
robust health and vigour without which worker would lead life of
misery. I.,ackofhealth denudes him of his livelihood. Compelling
c economic necessity to work in an industry exposed to health
hazards due to indigence to bread-winning for himself and his
dependants, should not be at the cost of the health and vigour of
the workman. Facilities and opportunities, as enjoined in Article
38, should be provided to protect the health of the workman.
D Provision for medical test and treatment invigorates the health
of the worker for higher production or efficient service. Continued
treatment, while in service or after retirement is a moral, legal
and constitutional concomitant duty ofthe employer and the State.
Therefore, it must be held that the right to health and medical
care is a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Articles
E 39(e), 41 and 43 of the Constitution and make the life of the
workman meaningful and purposeful with dignity of person. Right
to life in¢ludes protection of the health and strength of the worker
and is a minimum requirement to enable a person to live with
human dignity."
F 64. A similar view was expressed in Occupatio11a/ H ea/th &
Safety As.m. v. Union of llldia' when it was held in paragraph 10 of
the Report:
"Right to health i.e. right to live in a clean, hygienic and safe
environment is a right flowing from Article 21. Clean surroundings
G lead to healthy body and healthy mind. But, unfortunately, for
eking out a livelihood and for national interest, many employees
work in dangerous, risky and unhygienic environment. Right to
live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life
------
' (1995) 3 sec 42
H '(20I4J 3 sec 547
ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 85 l
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

breath from the directive principles of State policy, particularly A
clauses (e)and {t) ofArticles 39, 41 and42. Those articles include
protection of health and strength of workers and just and humane
conditions of work. Those are minimum requirements which must
exist to enable a person to live with human dignity. Every State
has an obligation and duty to provide at least the minimum B
condition ensuring human dignity."
65. Under the circumstances, there can be no doubt that the
residents of the NCT of Delhi and indeed the entire NCR are entitled to
breathe unpolluted air. They arc entitled to the protection of their health
from the ;1dverse consequences ofbreathing in air polluted by the bursting
of fireworks. c
66. The right to breathe clean air is a recognized right under our
Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to
paragraphs J6 and 17 of Ve/lore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. U11io11 of
J111Jiu 6 which read as follows:
D
"The constitutional and statutory provisions protect a person's
right to fresh air, clean water and pollution-free environment, but
the source of the right is the inalienable common law right of
clean environment. It would be useful to quote a paragraph from
· Blackstone!s commentaries on the Laws of England
(Commentaries on the Laws of England of Sir William E
Blackstone) Vol. III, fourth edition published in 1876. Chapter
XIII, "OfNuisance" depicts the law on the subject in the following
words:
"Also, if a person keeps his hogs, or other noisome animals, or
allows filth to. accumulate on his premises, so near the house ·F
of another, that the stench incommodes him and makes the air
unwholesome, this is an injurious nuisance, as it tends to deprive
him ofthe use and benefit of his house. A like injury is, if one's
neighbour sets up and exercises any offensive trade; as a
tanner's, a tallow-chandler's, or the like; for though these are
lawful and necessary trades, yet they should be exercised in G
remote places; for the rule is, 'sic utere tuo, ut alienum non
lcadas'; this therefore is an actionable nuisance. And on a similar
principle a constant ringing of bells in one's immediate
neighbourhood may be a nuisance.
-----
"(1996)5SCC647 H
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] ll S.C.R.

A ... With regard to other corporeal hereditaments; it is a
nuisance to stop or divert water that used to run to another's
meadow or mill; to corrupt or poison a watercourse, by
erecting a dye-house or a lime-pit, for the use of trade, in
the Upper part of the stream; to pollute a pond. from which
another is entitled to water his cattle; to obstruct a drain; or
B
in short to do any act in common property, that in its
con~equences must neccssanly tend to the prejudice of
one's neighbour. So closely does the law ofEngland enforce
that excellent rule of gospel-morality, of'doing to others, a'
we would they should do unto ourselves'."
c Our legal system having been founded on the British common
law the right of a person to a pollution-free environment is a part
of the basic jurisprudence of the land."
67. The right to health coupled with the right to breathe clean air
leaves no manner of doubt that it is important that air pollution deserves
D to be eliminated and one of the possible methods of reducing it during
Diwali is by continuing the suspension oflicenccs for the sale of fireworks
and therefore implicitly, prohibiting the bursting of fireworks.
68. In our considered opinion, continuing the suspension oflicences
might be too radical a step to take for the present -a graded and balanced
E approach is necessary that will reduce and gradually eliminate air pollution
in Delhi and in the NCR caused by the bursting of fireworks. At the
same time it is necessary to ensure that injustice is not caused to those
who have already been granted a valid permanent licence to possess
and sell fireworks in Delhi and the NCR. The graded and balanced
approach is not intended to dilute our primary concern which is and
F
remains the health of everybody and the human right to breathe good
quality air or at least not be compelled to breathe poor quality air.
Generally speaking, this must take precedence over the commercial or
other interest of the applicant and those granted a permanent licence to
possess and sell fireworks.
G 69. But, from the material before us, it cannot be said with any
great degree of certainty that the extremely poor quality ofair in Delhi in
November and December 20 J6 was the result only of bursting fireworks
around Diwali. Certainly. there were other causes as well, but even so
the contribution of the bursting of fireworks cannot be glossed over.
H Unfortunately, neither is it possible to give an accurate or relative
ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 853
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

assessment of the contribution of the other identified factors nor the A
contribution of bursting fireworks to the poor air quality in Delhi and in
the NCR. Consequently, a complete ban on the sale of fireworks would
be an extreme step that might not be fully warranted by the facts available
to us. There is, therefore, some justification for modifying the interim
order passed on 11 ''November, 2016 and lifting the suspension of the
B
permanent licences.
70. At the same time, it cannot be forgotten that admittedly there
is a huge quantity of fireworks in Delhi and in the NCR and the figure
has been provided to us by the applicant. Similarly, there can be no doubt
that the Delhi Police had issued a large number of temporary licences in
2016 and it would not be unreasonable to assume that around and during c
D.iwali, there would have been some illegal temporary shops set up,
whether known or not known to the police. We do not have the figures
with regard to the NCR, but we assume that like in Delhi, a large number
of temporary licences ha vc been issued for the possession and sale of
fireworks. Therefore, there is a need to regulate the availability and sale D
of fireworks in Delhi and the NCR.
Directions
71. As mentioned above, the health of the people in Delhi and in
the NCR must take precedence over any commercial or other interest
of the applicant or any of the permanent licensees and, therefore, a E
graded regulation is necessary which would eventually result in a
prohibition. Taking all factors into consideration, we are of the view that
the following orders and directions arc required to be issued and we do
so:
(I) The directions issued by this Court in Sadar Bazt1r Fire
F
Works (Puau Shop) Association' shall stand partially modified
to the extent that they are not in conformity with the Explosives
Rules which shall be implemented in full by the concerned
authorities. Safety from fire hazards is one of our concerns in
this regard.
(2) Specifically, Rule 15 relating to marking on explosives and G
packages and Rule 84 relating to temporary shops for possession
and sale of fireworks during festivals of the Explosives Rules
shall be strictly enforced. This should not be construed to mean
that the other Rules need not be enforced - all Rules should be
'SLP (C) No. 17327-28/1993 decided on I" November, l 993 H
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] l 1 S.C.R.

A enforced. But iftlle fireworks do not conform to the requirements
of Rules ! 5 and 84, they cannot be sold in the NCR, including
Delhi and this prohibition is absolute.
(3) The qirections issued and restrictions imposed in the order
passed by this Court on 18"' July, 2005 in Noise Pol/11tio11 (V)
B shall contmuc to be in force.
(4) The concerned police authorities and the District Magistrates
will ensure that fireworks arc not burst in silence zones that is,
an area at least I 00 meters away from hospitals, nursing homes,
prima1y and district health-care centres, educational institutions,
com1s, religious places or any other area that may be declared
c as a silence zone by the concerned authorities.
(5) The Delhi Police is directed to reduce the grant of temporary
licences by about 50% of the number oflicences granted in 2016.
The number of temporary licences should be capped at 500.
Similarly, the States in the NCR arc restrained from granting
D more than 50% of the number of temporary licences granted in
2016. The area of distribution of the temporary licences is entirely
for the authorities to decide.
(6) The Union of India will ensure strict compliance with the
Notification GSR No. 64(E) dated 27'' January, 1992 regarding
E the ban on import of fireworks. The Union oflndia is at liberty
to update and revise this notification in view of the passage of
time and' further knowledge gained over the last 25 years and
issue a fresh notification, if necessary.
(7) The Department of Education of the Government ofNCT of
Delhi and the corresponding Department in other States in the
F
NCR shall immediately formulate a plan of action, in not more
than 15 days, to reach out to children in all the schools through
the school staff, volunteers and NGOs to sensitize and educate
school children on the health hazards and ill-effects of breathing
polluted air, including air that is polluted due to fireworks. School
G children should be encouraged to reduce, if not eliminate, the
bursting of fireworks as a part of any festivities.
(8) The Government of NCT of Delhi and other States in the
NCR may consider interaetingwith established medical institutions
for issuing advisories cautioning people about the health hazards
of bursting fireworks.
H
ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 855
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

(9) The interim direction issued by this Court on 31" July, 2017 A
prohibiting the use of compounds of antimony, lithium, mercury,
arsenic and lead in the manufacture of fireworks is made absolute.
Jn addition, the use of strontium chromate in the manufacture of
fireworks is prohibited.
(I 0) Fireworks containing aluminium, sulphur; potassium and B
barium may be sold in Delhi and in the NCR, provided the
composition already approved by PESO is maintained. It is the
responsibility of PESO to ensure compliance of the standards it
bas formulated.
( 11) Since there are enough fireworks available for sale in Delhi
and the NCR, the transport of fireworks into Delhi and the NCR c
from outside the region is prohibited and the concerned law
enforcement authoriiics will ensure that there is no further entry
of fireworks into Delhi and the NCR till further orders. In our
opinion, even 50,00,000 kg of fireworks is far more than enough
for Dussehra and Diwali in 2017. The permanent licensees are D
at liberty to exhaust their existing stock of fireworks in Delhi and
the NCR and, iftbat is not possible, take measures to transport
the stocks outside Delhi and the NCR.
( 12) The suspension of permanent licences as directed by the
order dated 11 'h November, 2016 is lifted for the time being.
E
This might require a review after Diwali depending on the ambient
air quality post Diwali. However, it is made explicit that the sale
of fireworks by the permanent licensees must conform to the
directions given above and must be fully in compliance with the
Explosives Rules. We were informed that the permanent licences
were issued by PESO and therefore the responsibility is on PESO F
to ensure compliance.
( 13) While lifting the suspension on the permanent licences
alrc;1dy granted, we put these licensees on notice for Dusse.hra
and Diwali in 2018 that they will be permitted to possess and sell
only 50% of the quantity permitted in 2017 and that this will G
substantially reduce over the next couple of years. The permanent
licensees are at liberty to file objections to this proposed direction
within 30 days from today and thereafter the objections if any
will be beard and decided. Ifno objections arc filed, this direction
will become absolute without any further reference to any
licensee. H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] l l S.C.R.

A. ( 14) Since there is a lack of clarity on the safety limits of various
metals and constituents used in fireworks. a research study must
be jointly carried out by the CPCB and the FDRC laying down
appropriate standards for ambient air quality in relation to the
bursting of fireworks and the release ofthelf constituents in the
air. While Schedule VII of the Environment (Protection) Rules,
B
1986 d1Jes deal with severnl metals, but as we have seen there
are several other metals or constituents of fireworks that have
not been studied by the CPCB and no standards have been laid
down with regard to the concentration of these metals or
constituents in the ambient air. The CPCB has assured us that it
c will complete the exercise by 15" September, 2017 but keeping
in mind its track record subsequent to the order dated 11 ''
November, 2016 this does not seem possible. Therefore, we
grant t,ime to the CPCB to come out with definite standards on
or before 30" September, 2017.

D (15) Ira any event, a research study also needs to be conducted
on the impact of bursting fireworks during Dusschra and Diwali
on the, health of the people. We, therefore, appoint a Committee
to be chaired by the Chairperson of the CPCB and consisting of
officers at the appropriate level from the National Physical
Laboratory, Delhi. the Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied
E Sciences, Timarpur, Delhi, the Indian Institute ofTechnology-
Kanpur, scientists from the State Pollution Control Boards, the
Fire Development and Research Centre, Sivakasi and Nagpur
and the National Environment Engineering Research Institute
(NEER!) nominated by the Chairperson of the CPCB to submit
a report in this regard prcforably on or before 31" December,
F
2017.
(16) Keeping in mind the adverse effects of air pollution, the
human right to breathe clean air and the human right to health,
the Central Government and other authorities should consider
encouraging display fireworks through community participation
G rather than individnal bursting of fireworks.
72. With the above directions, I.A. No. 52448of2017 is disposed
of.

H Nidhi Jain I.A. disposed of.