Supreme Court of India
ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2018 INSC 981
- Decided
- 23 October 2018
- Disposal
- Directions issued
- Bench
- A K SIKRI
Holding
A balanced, graded regulation—permitting only reduced‑emission/green crackers, banning hazardous chemicals and joined crackers, limiting licences, time‑frames and locations, and mandating monitoring and public awareness—constitutes a reasonable restriction that upholds the right to health over commercial and religious claims.
Summary
The petitioners, three infants represented by their fathers, sought a ban on firecrackers and related explosives in Delhi/NCR, alleging severe health hazards from air pollution, especially during Diwali. The Court examined the constitutional balance between the right to health (Art.21) and the commercial (Art.19(1)(g)) and religious (Art.25) rights of manufacturers and users, applying the precautionary and polluter‑pays principles. It held that a graded regulatory regime—permitting only reduced‑emission and "green" crackers, banning certain chemicals and joined crackers, restricting licences, time‑limits, community fire‑cracking, and imposing strict monitoring—was appropriate. The Court directed PESO, CPCB and police to enforce these measures and ordered extensive public awareness. Interim applications were disposed and the writ petitions were listed for further hearing.
Issues considered
- The extent to which the right to health under Article 21 can justify restrictions on firecracker use.
- Whether a total ban on firecrackers violates the freedom to trade under Article 19(1)(g).
- Whether religious freedom under Article 25 can be curtailed for environmental and health reasons.
- The applicability of the precautionary principle and polluter‑pays principle in environmental regulation.
- The statutory authority of the Central Government to suspend firecracker licences under the Explosives Act, 1884 and Explosive Rules, 2008.
Legislation cited
- Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
- Explosive Rules, 2008s. Rule 15, s. Rule 84
- Explosives Act, 1884s. Rule 118 of the Explosive Rules, 2008, s. Sub‑Rule (5)
- Noise Pollution (V) Order, 2005
Subjects
air pollutionfirecrackersprecautionary principleright to healthenvironmental lawArticle 21Article 19(1)(g)Article 25DelhiNCRbangreen crackersPESOCPCB
Judgment
464 [2018]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 13 S.C.R. 464 [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(IA Nos. 6 and 8 of 2016, IA Nos. 10, 11, 80176, 96202, 109668,
B 109720 and 122778 of 2017, IA Nos. 68888 and 68897 of 2018)
in
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 728 of 2015)
OCTOBER 23, 2018
C [A.K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Environment – Air Pollution – Petitioners prayed for directions
to the respondents to take possible measures for checking the
pollution by striking at the causes of the pollution, which included
banning the use of firecrackers, sparkles and minor explosives, in
D any form, during festivals or otherwise – The following specific
directions were issued: (1) Crackers with reduced emission (improved
crackers) and green crackers only would be permitted to be
manufactured and sold; (2) Production and sale of other crackers
is hereby banned; (3) Manufacture, sale and use of joined
firecrackers (series crackers or laris) is hereby banned; (4) Sale
E shall only be through licensed traders; (5) no e-commerce websites,
including flipkart, amazon etc., shall accept any online orders and
effect online sales; (6) barium salts in the fireworks is also hereby
banned; (7) Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO)
is directed to review the clinical composition of fireworks,
F particularly reducing aluminum content – For undertaking this
exercise, PESO would also associate Fireworks Research and
Development Centre (FRDC); (8) even those crackers which have
already been produced and they do not fulfill the reduced emission
firecrackers conditions will not be allowed to be sold in Delhi and
NCR; (9) PESO will ensure fireworks with permitted chemicals only
G to be purchased/possessed/sold/used during Diwali and all other
religious festivals, of any religion whatsoever, and other occasions
like marriages, etc – It shall test and check for the presence of
banned chemicals like Lithium/Arsenic/ Antimony/Lead/Mercury;
(10) PESO will ensure suspension of the licenses of manufacturers
H of such fireworks items and appropriate disposal of such stock;
464
ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA 465
AND OTHERS
(11) PESO will ensure that only those crackers whose decibel A
(sound) level are within the limits are allowed in the market and will
ensure to take action by suspending the licenses of the manufacturers
on such violations and disposal of such lots; (12) Extensive public
awareness campaigns shall be taken up by the Central Government/
State Governments/Schools/ Colleges informing the public about
B
the harmful effects of firecrackers; (13) On Diwali days or on any
other festivals like Gurpurab etc., when such fireworks generally
take place, it would strictly be from 8:00 p.m. till 10:00 p.m. only –
On Christmas eve and New Year eve, when such fireworks start
around midnight, i.e. 12:00 a.m., it would be from 11:55 p.m. till
12:30 a.m. only; (14) The Union of India, Government of NCT of C
Delhi and the State Governments of the NCR would permit community
firecracking only for Diwali and some other festivals, wherever it
can be done – Even for marriages and other occasions, sale of
only improved crackers and green crackers is permitted – Insofar
as other States are concerned, an endeavour shall be made by them
D
also to explore the feasibility of community firecracking; (15) All
the official respondents, and particularly the Police, shall ensure
that fireworks take place only during the designated time and at
designated places, as mentioned above – They shall also ensure
that there is no sale of banned firecrackers; (16) Central Pollution
Control Board (CPCB) and respective State Pollution Control Boards/ E
Pollution Control Committees (SPCBs/PCCs) of the States and Union
Territories shall carry out short-term monitoring in their cities for
14 days (commencing from 7 days prior to Diwali and ending 7
days after Diwali) for the parameters namely, Aluminum, Barium,
Iron apart from the regulatory parameters against the short-term
F
Ambient Air Quality Criteria Values (AAQCVs) proposed by CPCB
with regard to bursting of firecrackers.
Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India and
Others (1996) 5 SCC 647 : [1996] 5 Suppl. SCR
241 ; A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu
(Retd.) and Others (1999) 2 SCC 718 : [1999] 1 SCR G
235 ; Noise Pollution (V), in Re (2005) 5 SCC 733 :
[2005] 1 Suppl. SCR 624 ; Shivashakti Sugars Limited
v. Shree Renuka Sugar Limited and Others (2017) 7
SCC 729 – referred to.
H
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A Case Law Reference
[1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 241 referred to Para 17
[1999] 1 SCR 235 referred to Para 17
[2005] 1 Suppl. SCR 624 referred to Para 17
B (2017) 7 SCC 729 referred to Para 37
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : IA Nos. 6 and 8 of 2016,
IA Nos. 10, 11, 80176, 96202, 109668, 109720 and 122778 of 2017,
IA Nos. 68888 and 68897 of 2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.728 of
2015
C
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
WITH
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 891, 895, 899 of 2016 and 213 of 2017.
A. N. S. Nadkarni, ASG, Anil Grover, AAG, Ms. Vibha Dutta
D Makhija, Shekhar Naphade, Dhruv Mehta, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advs.,
Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Ms. Pooja Dhar, Amit Bhandari, Ms. Haripriya
Padmanabhan, Ms. Shery Patnaik, Ms. Ashiwariy Kane, Ms. Veera
Mahuli, Ms. Astha Sharma, Anubhav Kumar, Abhishek Swarup, Ankit
Agarwal, Ms. Disha Vaish, Vinodh Kanna B., A. Sriram, Abhikalp Pratap
E Singh, Prateek Rusia, M/s. Corporate Law Group, Mrs. Sarla Chandra,
Vijay Panjwani, Rahul Mehra, Chirag M. Shroff, Ms. Neha Sangwan,
Ms. Charu Wali Khanna, Ms. Sanjana Nangi, Ms. Rohini Musa, Abhishek
Gupta, Zaffar Inayat, D. R. Raghunath, Mrs. V. D. Khanna, Anish R.
Shah, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Prakash Gautam, Shashank Shekhar Singh,
Sachin Mittal, Sagar Kothari, Ms. Mansi Bhatia, Pawan Sharma, Yoginder
F Handoo, Bijender Singh Chaudhary, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, S. K. Rajora,
Vijay Partap Singh, Dr. Kailash Chand, Ms. Garima Bajaj, Ms. Aakansha
Kaul, M. A. Chinnasamy, Ms. C. Rubavathi, P. Raja Ram, S. Peer
Mohamad, V. Senthil Kumar, Ms. Supriya Juneja, Ms.Adihja Singla,
Bharat Monga, Ms. M. K. Aswaihi, S. Manoj Selyaraj, Dr. Arvind Kumar,
G Ms. Nancy Mittal, Ashok Kumar Gupta II, Suvidutt M. S., Mohinder Jit
Singh, S. K. Verma, Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Ms. Uttara Babbar,
Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Ms. Deboshree Kukherjee, Shyam Kumar, Sanjay
Kumar Visen, D. N. Goburdhun, W. A. Qadri, M. P. Gupta,
Ms. Pallavi Chopra, G. S. Makker, Ms. Pallavi C., Baijnath Patel, Ritesh
Kumar, Ms. Suhasini Sen, Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, B. V. Balaram Das,
H
ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA 467
AND OTHERS
M. Yoesh Kanna, Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, S. Partha Sarathi, Aviral Saxena, A
Sandeep Singh, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, J. Sai Deepak, Vinesh K. Sharma,
Ashutosh Nagar, Pradeep Misra, Daleep Dhyani, Suraj Singh, Chandan
Kumar, Gaurang Kanth, Ms. Vandana Sehgal, Advs. for the appearing
parties.
Applicant-in-person. B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. K. SIKRI, J. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 728 of 2015 was filed
on September 24, 2015 on behalf of three infants, who are made
petitioners in this writ petition. Petitioner No.1 and 2, on the date of
filing of this writ petition, were six months old and petitioner No.3 was C
fourteen months old. This petition has been filed through their next
friends, i.e. their fathers, who are concerned about the health of their
children as they feel that due to the alarming degradation of the air
quality, leading to severe air pollution in the city of Delhi (where these
petitioners reside), the petitioners may encounter various health hazards. D
Poor, very poor or severe air quality/air pollution affects all citizens,
irrespective of their age. However, claim the petitioners, children are
much more vulnerable to air pollutants as exposure thereto may affect
them in various ways, including aggravation of asthma, coughing,
bronchitis, retarded nervous system breakdown and even cognitive
impairment. The petition accepts that there are number of reasons which E
have contributed to poor air quality in Delhi and National Capital Region
(for short, ‘NCR’). At the same time, it is emphasised that air pollution
hits its nadir during Diwali time because of indiscriminate use of
firecrackers, the chemical composition whereof increases harmful
particulate matters such as PM2.5 or PM10 at alarming level thereby F
bringing the situation of ‘emergency’. The petitioners have, thus, prayed
for direction to the official respondents to take possible measures for
checking the pollution by stricking at the causes of the pollution, which
includes seasonal crop burning, indiscriminate dumping of dust/malba
and other pollutants, etc. The prayer also includes banning the use, in
any form, of firecrackers, sparkles and minor explosives, in any form, G
during festivals or otherwise.
2. This petition came up for preliminary hearing on October 08,
2015 when notice was issued and the matter was directed to be listed on
H
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A October 16, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. since the petitioners wanted stay on burning
of crackers during Diwali, which was around the corner in that year.
When the matter was taken up on October 16, 2015, certain suggestions
were made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, which
were as under:
B “1. Restrict licenses to low hazard fireworks.
2. Period of grant of license is too early – need not be from 2 days
prior to Dussehra.
3. Restrict window for use of fireworks to be from 7:00 p.m. to
C 9:00 p.m.
4. RWAs to hold community fireworks for a brief period of 30
minutes on a single day.
5. Government be directed to give wide publicity to the ill effects
of fireworks and encourage restraint on responsible use.
D
6. Encourage teachers to tell students not to buy and use
fireworks.”
3. Suggestion Nos. 5 and 6 were accepted and the relevant portion
of the order that was passed reads as under:
E
“In our view for the present, if we accept suggestion Nos. 5 and
6 it will not in any way affect the interest of the respondents.
Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General appearing for
the Union of India states that the Union Government has already
F taken enough and effective steps to give wide publicity to the ill
effects of fireworks.
In spite of the submission so made by the learned Solicitor
General, we intend to pass the following order:
“The Union Government and all the State Governments will
G
give wide publicity both in print and Electronic media to the ill
effects of fireworks and advise people accordingly.
We also direct the Teachers/Lecturers/Assistant Professors/
Professors of the Schools and Colleges to educate the students
about the ill effects of the fireworks.””
H
ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA 469
AND OTHERS [A. K. SIKRI, J.]
4. Thereafter, this petition was taken up along with certain other A
connected petitions, including Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029 of 1985
titled ‘M.C. Mehta v. Union of India’ and orders dated December 16,
2015 were passed issuing several directions with a view to reducing the
levels of air pollution within the NCR, as the issues in those writ petitions
pertained to air pollution in Delhi and NCR as well. It may be mentioned
B
that the directions issued therein were general in nature though concerning
the problem of air pollution. Thereafter also the instant writ petition,
along with the M.C. Mehta case and other cases, came up for hearing
and it is not necessary to take note of all those orders.
5. Pertinently, during Diwali of 2016, which was celebrated on
October 30, 2016, the air quality in Delhi and NCR worsened alarmingly. C
In fact, certain reports indicated that the air quality standards in early
November of that year were the worst in the world. This prompted the
Court to take up IA No.4 filed in this writ petition. After hearing the
parties, it passed orders dated November 11, 2016.
6. The petitioners had pressed for interim relief in respect of D
fireworks, drawing the attention of this Court to the emergent situation
that has resulted in worsening the air quality standards in Delhi and
National Capital Region (NCR) because of extensive use of fireworks,
including firecrackers during Diwali last year. It was pointed out that
onset of winter itself deteriorates air quality in this region and it gets E
aggravated because of festival/marriage season that occurs during these
very months. Taking note of the aforesaid factors, particularly impact
of fireworks on the ambient air and unhealthy effects thereof which had
created unprecedented situation in Delhi, with air pollution going up at
alarming levels and making it the most polluted city in the world, the
order dated November 11, 2016 was passed. Air pollution had gone up F
to 29 times above the World Health Organisation (WHO) standards. In
the aforesaid scenario, this Court deemed it proper to pass certain
directions vide its order dated November 11, 2016 in IA No.4. Snapping
the supply chain of fireworks was considered to be the more practical
way of addressing the menace instead of banning the burning the crackers G
by individuals as it would have been difficult to monitor and enforce the
burning of the crackers by the citizenry.
7. In paragraph 18 of the Order dated November 11, 2016 it was
clarified that much was left to be heard, discussed and said about the
rival claims and contentions. However, the Court hastened to add that H
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A harmful effects of fireworks on the ambient air and the lungs, eyes and
ears of people was also an acknowledged fact, as can be seen from the
following portion of the said paragraph:
“18. We are aware that we are only issuing interim directions,
and much is left to be heard, discussed and said about the rival
B claims and contentions. What is however indisputable is that the
harmful effects of fireworks on the ambient air and the lungs,
eyes and ears of people. What is also obvious is the extreme
nuisance, noise the fireworks cause to citizens particularly the
ailing and the aged. Therefore, though much can be argued as
always about the significance and even joy of bursting fireworks,
C but at the same time (sic), prima facie, a just constitutional
balance must overwhelmingly prioritize the harmful effects of this
hazardous air on present and future generations, irreversible and
imperceptible as they are, over the immediate commercial
constraints of the manufacturers and suppliers of fireworks…”
D 8. In the process, this Court also recognised the duty of the State
to ensure a healthy environment in terms of Article 48A of the Constitution
of India as well as the duty of the citizens to ensure the same under
Article 51A(g) of the Constitution. The Court also reminded itself of the
“precautionary principle” which mandates that where there are threats
E of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not
be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental
degradation. In the order the Court had taken note of the deleterious
effects of air pollution on the health of the people, particularly the children.
Going by all these considerations, the Court passed the following
directions:
F
“19. We thus consider it inappropriate that explosives which are
used as fireworks should be available in the market in the NCR
till further orders. The mechanism of the law in this regard is
clear. Rule 118 of the Explosive Rules, 2008, framed under the
Explosives Act, 1884, provides for the manner in which licenses
G issued under the Explosives Act to store and sell explosives could
be suspended or cancelled. Sub-Rule (5) thereof specifically
confers on the Central Government a power to suspend or cancel
a license if it considers that it is in public interest. This provision
also makes it clear that an opportunity to hear the licensee could
H
ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA 471
AND OTHERS [A. K. SIKRI, J.]
be dispensed with if the Central Government considers that in A
public interest. This Court finds that the grave air quality situation
in NCR is one such case, where this Court, can intervene and
suspend the licenses to store and sell fireworks in the NCR. We
direct the Central Government to:
(i) Suspend all such licenses as permit sale of fireworks, B
wholesale and retail within the territory of NCR.
(ii) The suspension shall remain in force till further orders of
this Court.
(iii) No such licenses shall be granted or renewed till further
orders. C
20. In addition to the above, we direct the CPCB to study and
prepare a report on the harmful effects of the materials which
are currently being used in the manufacture of fireworks. The
report shall be submitted within a period of three months to this
Court.” D
9. Since direction was given to the Central Pollution Control Board
(CPCB) to study and prepare a report of the harmful effects of the
materials which are currently being used in the manufacture of fireworks
and submit a report within three months, the matter was taken up for
consideration thereafter from time to time. E
10. Thereafter, the manufacturers of firecrackers as well as license
holders also filed applications for modification of the aforesaid interim
order. It included IA No. 52448 of 2017. Because of these applications,
the matter was heard by a Bench of this Court and orders dated
September 12, 2017 were passed in the aforesaid IA. In this order also, F
the Court recognised severity of air pollution in Delhi and NCR. The
Court also discussed the manner in which air quality had worsened due
to fireworks during Diwali days in the year 2016. The Court took note
of the steps that were taken by different authorities aiming to reduce air
pollution after the passing of orders dated November 11, 2016; the legal
G
provisions contained in the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosive Rules,
2008 framed thereunder; and further steps which were needed in this
behalf to reduce the pollution in Delhi and NCR. The Court took note of
the fact that number of measures were required to be taken for improving
air quality as various factors were contributing to the air pollution. It also
H
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A specifically mentioned that one of the reasons was burning of crackers/
fireworks during Diwali. On that basis, the Court also accepted that
one of the possible methods for reducing it during Diwali is by continuing
the suspension of licenses for the sale of fireworks, thereby implicitly
prohibiting the bursting of fireworks. However, at the same time, the
Court expressed the opinion that continuing the suspension of licenses
B
might be too radical a step to take for the present. It was deemed
appropriate to adopt a graded and balanced approach, which is necessary,
that will reduce and gradually eliminate air pollution in Delhi and in the
NCR caused by the bursting of fireworks. In the process, the Court took
into consideration the interest of those who had already been granted a
C valid permanent licence to posses and sell fireworks in Delhi and the
NCR. We would like to reproduce the following paragraphs from the
said order:
“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
D deserves to be eliminated and one of the possible methods of
reducing it during Diwali is by continuing the suspension of
licences for the sale of fireworks and therefore implicitly,
prohibiting the bursting of fireworks.
68. In our considered opinion, continuing the suspension of
E licences might be too radical a step to take for the present – a
graded and balanced 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
F Delhi and the NCR. The graded and balanced approach is not
intended to dilute our 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
G commercial or other interest of the applicant and those granted a
permanent licence to possess and sell fireworks.
69. But, from the material before us, 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
H
ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA 473
AND OTHERS [A. K. SIKRI, J.]
bursting fireworks around Diwali. Certainly, there were other A
causes as well, but even so the contribution of the bursting of
fireworks cannot be glossed over. Unfortunately, neither is it
possible to give an accurate or 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.
B
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 11th November, 2016 and
lifting the suspension of the permanent licences.
70. At the same time, it cannot be forgotten that admittedly there C
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 Diwali, there would have been D
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 have been issued for the possession and sale of
fireworks. Therefore, there is a need to regulate the availability
and sale of fireworks in Delhi and the NCR.” E
11. It was followed by the following 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, F
therefore, a 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 are required to be issued and we do so:
(1) The directions issued by this Court in Sadar Bazar Fire G
Works (Pucca 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.
H
474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A (2) Specifically, Rule 15 relating to marking on explosives and
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
enforced. But if the fireworks do not conform to the
B
requirements of Rules 15 and 84, they cannot be sold in the NCR,
including Delhi and this prohibition is absolute.
(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.
C
(4) The concerned police authorities and the District Magistrates
will ensure that fireworks are not burst in silence zones that is, an
area at least 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
D 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 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
E 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 27th January, 1992 regarding
F the ban on import of fireworks. The Union of India 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 of NCT of
G 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 the
school staff, volunteers and NGOs to sensitize and educate school
children on the health hazards and ill-effects of breathing polluted
H
ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA 475
AND OTHERS [A. K. SIKRI, J.]
air, including air that is polluted due to fireworks. School children A
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 interacting with established medical
institutions for issuing advisories cautioning people about the health B
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. In addition, the use of strontium chromate in the C
manufacture of fireworks is prohibited.
(10) Fireworks containing aluminum, sulphur, potassium and 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 has formu- D
lated.
(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
enforcement authorities will ensure that there is no further entry E
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 at
liberty to exhaust their existing stock of fireworks in Delhi and the
NCR and, if that is not possible, take measures to transport the
stocks outside Delhi and the NCR. F
(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 of
fireworks by the permanent licensees must conform to the G
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
to ensure compliance.
H
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A (13) While lifting the suspension on the permanent licences
already granted, we put these licensees on notice for Dussehra
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
substantially reduce over the next couple of years. The
permanent licensees are at liberty to file objections to this
B
proposed direction within 30 days from today and thereafter the
objections if any will be heard and decided. If no objections are
filed, this direction will become absolute without any further
reference to any licensee.
(14) Since there is a lack of clarity on the safety limits of various
C metals and constituents used in fireworks, a research study must
be jointly carried out by the CPCB and the FRDC 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 Schedule VII of the Environment (Protection) Rules,
D 1986 does deal with several 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 con-
stituents in the ambient air. The CPCB has assured us that it will
complete the exercise by 15th September, 2017 but keeping in
E mind its track record subsequent to the order dated 11th
November, 2016 this does not seem possible. Therefore, we grant
time to the CPCB to come out with definite standards on or be-
fore 30th September, 2017.
(15) In any event, a research study also needs to be conducted on
F the impact of bursting fireworks during Dussehra 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
G Sciences, Timarpur, Delhi, 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) nominated by the Chairperson of the CPCB to submit a
report in this regard preferably on or before 31st December, 2017.
H
ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA 477
AND OTHERS [A. K. SIKRI, J.]
(16) Keeping in mind the adverse effects of air pollution, the A
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.”
12. After the aforesaid order was passed, many applications were B
filed, from both sides, seeking modification of some of the aforesaid
directions. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, in their application
for modification, they prayed for removal of Directions Nos. 5 and 10 to
13, which was in essence a prayer for restoration of earlier order dated
November 11, 2016. Insofar as fireworks manufacturers, traders and
license holders of the fireworks/firecrackers are concerned, they wanted C
that relaxation given in the order dated September 12, 2017 be further
liberalised.
13. After hearing both the parties, orders dated October 09, 2017
were passed. The Court accepted the fact that burning of firecrackers
during Diwali was not the only reason for air pollution in Delhi and NCR D
and there was a need to tackle those factors as well. However, it was
observed that the immediate impact of use of fireworks and firecrackers
bursting during Diwali is an altogether different aspect. The Court noted
that there is direct evidence of deterioration of air quality at alarming
levels, which happens every year. Burning of these firecrackers during E
Diwali in 2016 had shot up PM levels by three times, making Delhi the
worst city in the world insofar as air pollution is concerned. Direct and
immediate cause thereof was burning of crackers during Diwali. The
Court also remarked that every year before Diwali there are attempts
on the part of the Government (Ministry of Environment, Government
of India as well as Delhi Government), Media, NGOs and various other F
groups to create awareness in the general public about the ill-effects of
bursting of these crackers. Campaigns are held in the schools wherein
children are discouraged to have fireworks. Thus, there is virtually a
consensus in the society that crackers should not be burnt during Diwali,
which can be celebrated with equal fervour by various other means as G
well. Irony is that when causes are brought in the Court, there is a
resistance from certain quarters. Moreover, there are adequate
statutory provisions, aid whereof can be taken to ban the sale of
these crackers.
H
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A 14. The Court also took into consideration three substantial
submissions which were made by the petitioners, viz.: (a) CPCB had
taken a stand, nearly twenty years ago, that Sulphur in fireworks should
not be permitted as Sulphur on combustion produces Sulphur Dioxide
and the same is extremely harmful to health. The CPCB has stated that
between 9:00 p.m. to midnight on Diwali day the levels of Sulphur
B
Dioxide content in the air are dangerously high. Moreover, all the above
authorities were also unanimous in their view that crackers should only
be burst in designated places. Also the CPCB had specifically stated
that joined crackers should be banned. Secondly, in the order dated
November 11, 2016, licenses were suspended primarily for the reason
C that rising in the PM levels at alarming proportion was because of burning
of crackers during Diwali, which had adverse harmful affect and,
therefore, there was no reason to relax this condition. Another significant
argument which was taken note of was that the order dated November
11, 2016 was passed immediately after the Diwali in the year 2016 and
the effect of that order had not been tested. Going by these considerations,
D
the Court decided to suspend the order dated September 12, 2017 at
least during the Diwali of 2017 with the following directions:
“14...To put it clearly, though we are not tweaking with the
various directions contained in the Orders dated September 12,
2017, the effect of that Order would not be given during this Diwali
E and, therefore, we are making it effective only from November
01, 2017. We are conscious of the fact that after the said order
was passed, the police may have issued temporary licences.
Accordingly, those are suspended forthwith so that there is no
further sale of the crackers in Delhi and NCR. Further orders in
F this behalf can be passed on assessing the situation that would
emerge after this Diwali season...”
15. As expected, spate of applications have been filed, most of
which emanate from the aforesaid orders dated October 09, 2017. Many
parties have intervened. Most of the interventionists are supporting the
G petitioners and want permanent ban on the burning of crackers during
Diwali. Some have even prayed that this ban be extended to the whole
country and should not be limited to only Delhi and NCR. IAs were also
filed seeking ban on crop burning. The opposite group consists of
manufacturers of crackers, manufacturers’ association and license
holders. The State of Tamil Nadu has come forward to support this
H
ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA 479
AND OTHERS [A.K. SIKRI, J.]
category. Additionally, one interventionist, namely Indic Collective A
(applicant in IA No. 105355 of 2017), is also opposing the ban contending
that burning of crackers during Diwali is a religious activity which is in
vogue for time immemorial and, therefore, it should not be banned.
16. It is not necessary to take note of the arguments of each of
the counsel appearing on either side. For the sake of convenience, B
arguments of the petitioners as well as those who have supported the
petitioners’ cause and the arguments of the other group which is opposing
the prayers made by the petitioners, are collated and we state below
these arguments and counter arguments in consolidated manner:
17. Petitioners’ Arguments: C
(a) As far as the petitioners are concerned, they have proceeded
on the premise that undeniable fact is that as a result of burning of
crackers during Diwali PM2.5 reach an alarmingly high level which
certainly is injurious to health. It is argued that the adverse affect thereof
on the health of citizens, particularly children, is irreversible. It causes D
asthma, coughing, bronchitis, retarded nervous system breakdown and
even cognitive impairment.
(b) The official respondents had failed to address the issues and
carry out desired studies in spite of the directions of this Court. Various
committees set up are examining the question as to what kind of metal E
should be used in the manufacture of crackers. So far no study has
been conducted on the ill-effect caused by PM2.5.
(c) Studies by CPCB had categorically found that burning of
crackers during Diwali was contributing to air as well as noise pollution
in an alarming manner. Copies of these studies showing continuous F
ambient air quality during Diwali annexed with IA No. 109720 of 2017
is referred to. Contents of the affidavit of CPCB dated January 05,
2018 has also been relied upon.
The petitioners also rely upon the report filed by the Union of
India, through the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
G
wherein ill-effects of fireworks are accepted and measures suggested
to tackle the same.
Opinions of prominent doctors mentioning spike in the respiratory
problems among children and patients are also pointed out.
H
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A (d) Dealing with the argument of the manufacturers and traders
of firecrackers based on Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India,
namely, fundamental right to carry on business, the submission of the
petitioners is that going by the ill-effects of the firecrackers, no such
right can be claimed as principle of res extra commercium would apply.
In support, additional affidavit filed on July 26, 2017 as well as in July
B
2018 are referred to wherein the petitioners have sought to highlight the
following aspects:
(i) These manufacturers were employing child labour. At one
point of time, almost one lakh children were employed in this industry.
Though it was admitted that this position does not exist any longer in
C view of strict measures taken by the Government.
(ii) The manufacturing of firecrackers generates a lot of waste
which adds to pollution as sufficient measures are not undertaken to
deal with this waste.
D (iii) Number of deaths as well as injuries to persons are caused
every year due to poor storage which results in occasional accidents.
Likewise, the burning of these crackers also results in injuries.
(iv) Firework also leads to lot of noise and air pollution as well.
Judgments of this Court in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union
E of India and Others, (1996) 5 SCC 647; and A.P. Pollution Control
Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) and Others, (1999) 2 SCC 718,
have been relied upon.
In the alternative, it was argued that even if it is accepted that
argument of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is available to the
F manufacturers and traders, such a ban on burning crackers during
Diwali would amount to reasonable restriction having regard to
the fact that right to health was also a fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was also submitted that
the cost in the form of medical expenses which are incurred for
treatment of those who suffered as a result of burning of crackers
G is equally high or even may be higher.
(e) One of the arguments of the opposite side was that there
were no sufficient studies as to what extent the burning of crackers is
contributing towards air and noise pollution and whether it was such a
serious problem which warrants ban. To this, reply of the petitioners
H
ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA 481
AND OTHERS [A. K. SIKRI, J.]
was that in the field of environmental laws, precautionary principle was A
also applicable which does not need exact studies or material.
(f) Insofar as argument of burning of crackers during Diwali, as
a part of right of religious practice is concerned, the refutation of the
petitioners is that such an argument has already been rejected by this
Court in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum case. It was further submitted B
that burning of crackers during Diwali is not a core and essential religious
practice and even if it is so, Article 25 was subject to Article 21 of the
Constitution. Judgment in Noise Pollution (V), in Re, (2005) 5 SCC
733, was relied upon in this regard.
18. Arguments of the opposite side: C
The respondents, who are opposing the prayers made in the
writ petitions and the IAs, made the submissions to the following effect:
(i) Burning of crackers during Diwali does not have any significant
adverse affect on the environment. It is argued that there is no study till
date which has come to such a conclusion. The Deepawali Monitoring D
Report, 2017 of CPCB is relied upon for this purpose and on that basis it
is contended that the factors which contributed to the problem were not
because of crackers burning during Diwali. Ambient air quality before
and after Diwali reflects that there was no spike immediately after Diwali.
It was accepted that situation of air pollution in Delhi and NCR is E
‘generally’ worrying. However, there are multiple causes which lead to
polluting air and such a position existed even before Diwali, which showed
that other factors played dominant role.
(ii) Insofar as presence of PM2.5 in the air is concerned, studies of
CPCB are relied upon, on the basis of which attempt is made to show F
that: (a) spike was not so much during Diwali days; (b) increase in
PM2.5 in the air does not remain for long, i.e. it does not linger for many
days; and (c) it is manageable as well.
Reports of Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur; National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), USA; a professor from
G
Harvard University; and an affidavit dated January 05, 2018 filed by
CPCB were referred to in support.
(iii) It is submitted that pursuant to orders dated September 12,
2017 whereby the Court had directed that a research study needs to be
H
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A conducted on the impact of bursting fireworks during Dussehra and
Diwali on the health of people, no such empirical data has emerged so
far for want of detailed studies.
In nutshell, the argument was that in the absence of any definite
study attributing the worsening of air quality to the fireworks during
B Diwali, the right of the manufacturers and traders under Article 19(1)(g),
which is a fundamental right to carry on trade, should not be made to
suffer till the time there is a complete study in this behalf.
(iv) It is also argued that the revenue generated from the
manufacturing and sale of fireworks is to the tune of Rs.6,000 crores
C per annum. Further, this industry has given employment to five lakh
families. Such a revenue to the State as well as employment to large
number of workers on which five lakh families sustain cannot be put in
jeopardy by imposing a total ban. It was emphasised that there is a
necessity to adopt a balanced approach. For this purpose, Status Report
and affidavit of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
D has been relied upon which suggested eco-friendly firecrackers. Advisory
dated March 07, 2008 issued by the Petroleum and Explosives Safety
Organisation (PESO), which comes under the Department of Industrial
Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government
of India, was also relied upon, as per which the fireworks manufacturers
E in India were advised to ensure that the firecrackers manufactured by
them are within the limits prescribed in Annexure-I to the said Advisory
dated March 07, 2008.
(v) The State of Tamil Nadu also supported the cause of the
manufacturers and traders of the firecrackers. It was argued that the
F study undertaken by CPCB pursuant to the directions issued by this
Court was conducted by the Committee which did not have a
representative from the Fireworks Research and Development Centre
(FRDC) which was not even informed about the development of this
case. It was emphasised that any proper study in this behalf should
address following aspects:
G
a) Socio-economic effect of the ban needs to be examined as it
may cause extreme economic hardship,
b) There should be a proper study about the other factors which
were leading to air pollution, like construction activity, etc., which
are not banned.
H
ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA 483
AND OTHERS [A. K. SIKRI, J.]
c) Banning of an activity is an extreme measure. The study should A
focus on the alternatives available in the present day
technology which may be deployed to ensure that pollution free
firecrackers can be manufactured.
(vi) Indic Collective (applicant in IA No. 105355 of 2017) opposed
the prayer of banning of fireworks during Diwali on the ground that it B
was a religious practice scrupulously followed by the Hindus from time
immemorial and it had become a core and essential religious practice
which was protected under Article 25 of the Constitution as their
fundamental right.
19. The arguments of the parties recorded above would show C
that the submissions for and against almost remain the same, which
were advanced on earlier occasions, though the focus of both the sides
was more nuanced. In the process, the events and developments which
have taken place after passing the order dated October 09, 2017 have
also been relied upon by both the parties.
D
20. Before proceeding to deal with these submissions, it may be
apposite to take note of the study that has been undertaken by CPCB on
the basis of the directions of this Court in its order dated September 12,
2017.
21. Following the directions of this Court, a Committee was E
appointed to be chaired by the Chairperson of the CPCB. This Committee
invited Dr. M.K. Daga, Professor Director, Maulana Azad Medical
College (MAMC), as health expert to study the methodology. Dr. Daga
suggested that considering the time available, a short-term study based
on questionnaire survey, hospital data collection and sampling at a few
locations can be conducted. This methodology proposed by Dr. Daga F
was agreed to by the Committee. The Committee requested MAMC to
submit a proposal accordingly. On submission of project proposal, the
Committee awarded the project on ‘Health Impact Assessment on
Firecracker Burning During Dussehra And Diwali’ to MAMC. The
scope included questionnaire survey for respiratory, skin, air, eye and G
relevant symptoms during pre and post Diwali, clinical study on lung
function and urine samples of randomly selected subjects, and data
analysis. After conducting this survey, a draft report was prepared and
ultimately it was finalised after incorporating the comments from the
Members of the Committee. As per this study on the afore-mentioned
subject, following are the major findings: H
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A “The respiratory system related symptoms and sings were not
much different during pre and post Dussehra and Diwali.
Although there was some increase in cough and breathlessness,
but this did not translate into any significant illness requiring
immediate medical attention. Other system related complaints
were also not much different during pre and post Dussehra and
B
Diwali.
There was evidence of increased values of barium and strontium
in urine samples of many subjects. These are some of the metals
used in firecracker manufacturing. Increased levels in urine do
reflect a probability of exposure. However, all other elements
C are not increased to substantiate the effect of bursting of
firecrackers. It is also possible that the individuals were exposed
due to bursting of firecrackers directly or indirectly in their local-
ity.
Air quality did worsen during Diwali and symptoms of eye,
D increased coughing, relatively more hospital visits, increased noise
levels and high metal levels in urine do reflect adverse impact of
firecracker bursting. However, it was not significant statistically.
A long term study would be required to assess long term health
impacts of firecracker bursting.”
E 22. Affidavit filed by CPCB also states that in compliance of the
orders dated October 09, 2017 of this Court the Air Quality Monitoring
Committee during Dussehra and Diwali was conducted by CPCB,
a report whereof is annexed with its affidavit. As per that report, the
salient features are as under:
F “a) That, slight increase in PM10 concentration was observed in
two locations i.e. Pitampura and Siri Fort on Dussehra day.
b) That, PM2.5 mass concentrations were found lower on post
Dussehra day at all stations and it was highest on pre Dussehra
day.
G
c) That the concentrations of SO2 and NO2 during pre Dussehra,
Dussehra and post Dussehra days remained within limits.
d) That, though the actual PM2.5 mass concentrations were
declined on Dussehra day, certain specific elemental
H
ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA 485
AND OTHERS [A. K. SIKRI, J.]
concentration like Aluminum, Potassium and Barium showed A
increment on Dussehra day, which indicate some firecracker
bursting has affected air quality.
e) That, on Diwali day both PM10 and PM2.5 increased 2-3.5 fold
of the levels recorded seven days before Diwali and the Diwali
peaks of PM2.5 declined in three days. B
f) Both PM10 and PM2.5 were reported higher in post Diwali day
compared to pre Diwali at all stations.
g) SO2 remained within prescribed standard limit with slight
increment on Diwali day. NO2 also reported within standard
limit at all locations on Diwali day. C
h) That, the elements like Al, S, K, Cl2, Ba, Sr all have registered
their presence in PM2.5 collected on Diwali day, and the
concentration of Al observed 4 to 6 times higher than that of
short-term standards/critical values of 40 ug/m3 proposed by
CPCB. D
i) PM2.5 was reduced by 39% compared to 2016 Diwali day.
j) Sulphur got reduced by 20%, Potassium by 30%, Ca, Cu, Zn,
Sb by about 35-40%, Fe&Ba by about 50%, Strontium by 64%
and Al and Cl2 by 11%.”
E
23. It can be discerned from the above that the air quality had
worsened during Diwali. There were more patients with symptoms of
eye, increased coughing and patients with high metal levels in urine.
Even noise level had increased. These are the adverse impacts of
firecracker bursting, though the study mentions that statistically it was
F
not a significant increase.
24. The study has also found that actual PM2.5 mass concentrations
increased due to firecracker bursting, which had affected air quality.
On Diwali day both PM10 and PM2.5 had 2-3.5 fold increase. Also,
PM10 and PM2.5 were reported higher in post-Diwali day compared to
pre-Diwali at all stations. Another significant finding is that PM2.5 was G
reduced by 39% compared to 2016 Diwali, presumably due to the ban
order on the sale of crackers which was passed on October 09, 2017,
which led to lesser quantum of fireworks.
H
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A 25. Two significant features emerge from the above. First, due to
fireworks on Diwali day, PM2.5 levels go up. Secondly, when there was
lesser fireworks in 2017, it had reduced the PM2.5 levels as compared to
the earlier Diwali in the absence of ban.
26. It is an accepted fact that bursting of firecrackers during Diwali
B is not the only reason for deterioration of air quality. There are other
factors as well. It calls for necessity to tackle the other contributory
factors for air pollution and making the air quality as ‘very poor’ and
even ‘poor’. Unregulated construction activity which generates lot of
dust and crop burning in the neighbouring States are the two other major
reasons, apart from certain other reasons, including vehicular pollution
C etc. The moot question in such a scenario is as to whether the menace
due to fireworks during Diwali or other festivals/occasions should be
left untouched and the Court should allow the situation to prevail as it is,
only because it is not the sole reason for causing air pollution? Answer
has to be in the negative.
D 27. Once it is accepted that PM2.5 level goes alarmingly higher on
Diwali and post-Diwali, which is the result of bursting of firecrackers,
it is necessary to understand the adverse affect on health of persons of
this particulate in air, even if such a situation remains only for few days.
In this behalf, we may refer to the opinions of some experts/prominent
E doctors in the field, which have been placed on record by the petitioners.
28. Dr. Arvind Kumar, who interfered in the matter, filed his
affidavit on August 14, 2018, wherein he has inter alia stated as under:
“7. I have consistently found that in the immediate aftermath of
Diwali, there is an increase in the number of people coming with
F chest ailments and many of my operated patients returned with
complaints of cough and breathlessness without any other cause
for the same. This has forced me to carry out innumerable chest
x-rays and CT scans to confirm that the complaints are due to the
exposure to toxins. For the sake of relief to the patient and in
G order to relieve them from bronchospasms, my colleagues and I
are compelled to prescribe inhalers which have brochodilators
and inhaled steroids, apart from cough suppressants and
antibiotics. Media reports suggest that there has been an increase
in asthma medicine sales by 43% due to pollution (Hindustan Times,
May 02, 2017). While earlier, it was believed that children with
H
ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA 487
AND OTHERS [A. K. SIKRI, J.]
asthma would outgrow the affliction, in the present circumstances, A
this seems challenging.
8. Both at AIIMS and at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, there has been
a significant increase in the number of patients I would see in my
OPD in the days immediately following Diwali, and I have no
doubt that this was on account of sudden exposure to the deadly B
cocktail consisting of extremely high levels of toxic gases,
particulate matter and metallic compounds. Each exposure to
firework emissions not only leads to acute disastrous effects but
also causes cumulative long-term irreversible damage. Once the
PM2.5 particle gets deposited in the lungs, it never leaves, thereby
affecting the linking for life and diminishing breathing capacity. C
This affects not only the respiratory system, but also the
cardio-vascular system (heart attacks and hypertension), nervous
system (strokes and developmental abnormalities in children),
reproductive system and virtually every other health function
including the bladder and kidneys. D
9. It would be useful to refer to two studies conducted ten years
apart by a team including Prof. Sundeep Salvi, Director Chest
Research Foundation, Pune and Member of the Government of
India’s Steering Committee on Air Pollution & Health. The first
one in 2007 was presented at the Annual Congress of the E
European Respiratory Society at Stockholm and reveals the harmful
health effects of CO, SOx and NOx from fireworks.
10. The second is a detailed study on the amount of Particulate
Matter in various types of fireworks in India and this was
presented at the meeting of the European Respiratory Society at F
Milan in 2017. This has since been published in the European
Respiratory Journal, and examines the personal exposure levels
of fireworks (as against a general study of ambient air). In these
isolated and controlled circumstances, the exposure to PM2.5 was
found to be as high as 64,5000 u/m3.”
G
29. From the aforesaid it can be gathered that when PM2.5 crosses
the normal limits, even if it remains in the air for few days, it becomes
severe health hazard thereby causing serious health problems.
Unfortunately such problems are virtually irreversible, which means that
a person whose health gets affected because of this particulate has a
H
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A long suffering. In view thereof, argument in opposition that air quality
that gets worsened during Diwali remains only for few days would be
of no consequence as even in few days it causes severe harm to the
health of the people, that too for prolonged duration.
30. From the aforesaid discussion, the position can be summed up
B by stating that though burning of crackers during Diwali is not the only
reason for worsening air quality, at the same time, it definitely contributes
to air pollution in a significant way. Again, even when no studies are
undertaken on long-term impact thereof, the CPCB Committee, which
did this exercise taking it as a short-term project which was assigned to
MAMC, has returned a definite finding about deterioration in air quality
C during Diwali because of burning of crackers. It has also shown that
post-Diwali air pollution in 2017 was less compared to the 2016 Diwali
which was the result of lesser fireworks in 2017. This again indicates a
direct causal connection between burning crackers during Diwali and
air pollution. Another immediate effect of burning of crackers is that it
D results in substantial increase in PM2.5 level which is a very serious
health hazard. In fact, this results in severe noise pollution as well which
has acute psychological, mental and even physical affect on animals. In
the application seeking intervention and directions (IA No. 68897 of 2018)
filed by Gauri Maulekhi, the applicant has placed on record plethora of
literature based on various studies depicting profound affect of noise/
E sound on the health of animals, extending to their neuroendocrine system,
reproduction and development, metabolism, cardiovascular health,
cognition and sleep, audition, immune system, DNA integrity and gene
expression. Fireworks sometimes results in temporary or permanent
hearing impairment in animals. Further, dogs are also known to display
F psychological symptoms of stress during this time. So much so, fireworks
has traumatising affect even on birds. Deafening sound which the
crackers produce on bursting are known to disorient birds and responsible
for their displacement from their nests. Even the respiratory system of
the birds gets affected. Studies also show that the sound of crackers
has affect on milch cattle. As the cattle is scared, adrenaline is released
G in its body which inhibits oxytocin, a hormone which helps the milk cattle
to release milk thereby affecting the production of milk.
31. The aforesaid findings are sufficient to negate the arguments
of the opposite side that there is absence of scientific study about the
adverse affect of firecrackers during Diwali. In environmental law,
H
ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA 489
AND OTHERS [A. K. SIKRI, J.]
‘precautionary principle’ is one of the well recognised principles which A
is followed to save the environment. It is rightly argued by the petitioners
that this principle does not need exact studies/material. The very word
‘precautionary’ indicates that such a measure is taken by way of
precaution which can be resorted to even in the absence of definite
studies. In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum, this Court explained the
B
principle in the following manner:
“11. Some of the salient principles of “Sustainable Development”,
as culled out from Brundtland Report and other international
documents, are Inter-Generational Equity, Use and Conservation
of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection, the Precaution-
ary Principle, Polluter Pays Principle, Obligation to Assist and C
Cooperate, Eradication of Poverty and Financial Assistance to
the developing countries. We are, however, of the view that “The
Precautionary Principle” and “The Polluter Pays Principle” are
essential features of “Sustainable Development”. The
“Precautionary Principle” — in the context of the municipal law D
— means:
(i) Environmental measures — by the State Government and the
statutory authorities — must anticipate, prevent and attack the
causes of environmental degradation.
(ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, E
lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for
postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.
(iii) The “onus of proof” is on the actor or the developer/
industrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign.
F
xx xx xx
14. In view of the above-mentioned constitutional and statutory
provisions we have no hesitation in holding that the Precautionary
Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle are part of the
environmental law of the country.
G
15. Even otherwise once these principles are accepted as part of
the Customary International Law there would be no difficulty in
accepting them as part of the domestic law. It is almost an
accepted proposition of law that the rules of Customary
International Law which are not contrary to the municipal law
H
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A shall be deemed to have been incorporated in the domestic law
and shall be followed by the courts of law. To support we may
refer to Justice H.R. Khanna’s opinion in A.D.M. v. Shivakant
Shukla, Jolly George Varghese case and Gramophone Co.
case.
B 16. 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 environ-
ment...”
32. The precautionary principle accepted in the aforesaid judgment
C was further elaborated in A.P. Pollution Control Board’s case as under:
“31. The “uncertainty” of scientific proof and its changing
frontiers from time to time has led to great changes in
environmental concepts during the period between the Stockholm
Conference of 1972 and the Rio Conference of 1992. In Vellore
D Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India a three-Judge Bench
of this Court referred to these changes, to the “precautionary
principle” and the new concept of “burden of proof” in
environmental matters. Kuldip Singh, J. after referring to the
principles evolved in various international conferences and to the
concept of “sustainable development”, stated that the precaution-
E ary principle, the polluter-pays principle and the special concept
of onus of proof have now emerged and govern the law in our
country too, as is clear from Articles 47, 48-A and 51-A(g) of our
Constitution and that, in fact, in the various environmental
statutes, such as the Water Act, 1974 and other statutes, including
F the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, these concepts are
already implied. The learned Judge declared that these principles
have now become part of our law. The relevant observations in
the Vellore case in this behalf read as follows: (SCC p. 660, para
14)
G “14. In view of the above-mentioned constitutional and
statutory provisions we have no hesitation in holding that the
precautionary principle and the polluter-pays principle are
part of the environmental law of the country.”
(emphasis supplied)
H
ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA 491
AND OTHERS [A. K. SIKRI, J.]
The Court observed that even otherwise, the abovesaid principles A
are accepted as part of the customary international law and hence
there should be no difficulty in accepting them as part of our
domestic law. In fact, on the facts of the case before this Court, it
was directed that the authority to be appointed under Section 3(3)
of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
B
“shall implement the ‘precautionary principle’ and the ‘polluter-
pays principle’”.
The learned Judges also observed that the new concept which
places the burden of proof on the developer or industrialist who is
proposing to alter the status quo, has also become part of our C
environmental law.
32. The Vellore judgment has referred to these principles briefly
but, in our view, it is necessary to explain their meaning in more
detail, so that courts and tribunals or environmental authorities
can properly apply the said principles in the matters which come D
before them.
33. A basic shift in the approach to environmental protection
occurred initially between 1972 and 1982. Earlier, the concept
was based on the “assimilative capacity” rule as revealed from
Principle 6 of the Stockholm Declaration of the U.N. Conference E
on Human Environment, 1972. The said principle assumed that
science could provide policy-makers with the information and
means necessary to avoid encroaching upon the capacity of the
environment to assimilate impacts and it presumed that relevant
technical expertise would be available when environmental harm
was predicted and there would be sufficient time to act in order to F
avoid such harm. But in the 11th Principle of the U.N. General
Assembly Resolution on World Charter for Nature, 1982, the
emphasis shifted to the “precautionary principle”, and this was
reiterated in the Rio Conference of 1992 in its Principle 15 which
reads as follows: G
“Principle 15.—In order to protect the environment, the
precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States
according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of
H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty
shall not be used as a reason for proposing cost-effective
measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
34. In regard to the cause for the emergence of this principle,
Charmian Barton, in the article earlier referred to in Vol. 22, Harv.
B Envtt. L. Rev. (1998), p. 509 at p. 547 says:
“There is nothing to prevent decision-makers from assessing
the record and concluding that there is inadequate information
on which to reach a determination. If it is not possible to make
a decision with ‘some’ confidence, then it makes sense to err
C on the side of caution and prevent activities that may cause
serious or irreversible harm. An informed decision can be made
at a later stage when additional data is available or resources
permit further research. To ensure that greater caution is taken
in environmental management, implementation of the principle
through judicial and legislative means is necessary.”
D
In other words, the inadequacies of science is the real basis that
has led to the precautionary principle of 1982. It is based on the
theory that it is better to err on the side of caution and prevent
environmental harm which may indeed become irreversible.
E 35. The principle of precaution involves the anticipation of
environmental harm and taking measures to avoid it or to choose
the least environmentally harmful activity. It is based on scien-
tific uncertainty. Environmental protection should not only aim at
protecting health, property and economic interest but also protect
the environment for its own sake. Precautionary duties must not
F only be triggered by the suspicion of concrete danger but also by
(justified) concern or risk potential. The precautionary principle
was recommended by the UNEP Governing Council (1989). The
Bomako Convention also lowered the threshold at which
scientific evidence might require action by not referring to
G “serious” or “irreversible” as adjectives qualifying harm.
However, summing up the legal status of the precautionary
principle, one commentator characterised the principle as still
“evolving” for though it is accepted as part of the international
customary law, “the consequences of its application in any
potential situation will be influenced by the circumstances of each
H
ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA 493
AND OTHERS [A. K. SIKRI, J.]
case”. (See First Report of Dr Sreenivasa Rao Pemmaraju — A
Special Rapporteur, International Law Commission dated 3-4-
1998, paras 61 to 72.).”
33. In such cases which pertain to the protection of environment,
thrusting of ‘onus of proof’ on the developer/industrialist in Vellore
Citizens’ Welfare Forum was also elaborated by the Court in the B
following manner:
“36. We shall next elaborate the new concept of burden of proof
referred to in the Vellore case at p. 658. In that case, Kuldip
Singh, J. stated as follows: (SCC p. 658, para 11)
“(iii) The ‘onus of proof’ is on the actor or the developer/ C
industrialist to show that his action is environmentally benign.”
37. It is to be noticed that while the inadequacies of science have
led to the “precautionary principle”, the said “precautionary
principle” in its turn, has led to the special principle of burden of
proof in environmental cases where burden as to the absence of D
injurious effect of the actions proposed, — is placed on those
who want to change the status quo [Wynne, Uncertainty and
Environmental Learning, 2 Global Envtl. Change 111 (1992) at
p. 123]. This is often termed as a reversal of the burden of proof,
because otherwise in environmental cases, those opposing the E
change would be compelled to shoulder the evidentiary burden, a
procedure which is not fair. Therefore, it is necessary that the
party attempting to preserve the status quo by maintaining a less
polluted state should not carry the burden of proof and the party
who wants to alter it, must bear this burden. [See James M. Olson:
“Shifting the Burden of Proof”, 20 Envtl. Law, p. 891 at p. 898 F
(1990).] [Quoted in Vol. 22 (1998), Harv. Env. Law Review,
p. 509 at pp. 519, 550.]
38. The precautionary principle suggests that where there is an
identifiable risk of serious or irreversible harm, including, for
example, extinction of species, widespread toxic pollution in G
major threats to essential ecological processes, it may be
appropriate to place the burden of proof on the person or entity
proposing the activity that is potentially harmful to the
environment. (See Report of Dr Sreenivasa Rao Pemmaraju,
H
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A Special Rapporteur, International Law Commission, dated 3-4-
1998, para 61.)”
34. This brings us to the next argument which is predicated on
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Mr. Shankarnarayanan had submitted
that principle of res extra commercium shall apply inasmuch as
B firecrackers are a health hazard, the manufacturers and traders thereof
cannot claim any fundamental right to carry on business in this field.
Such a plea may not be tenable. Therefore, it calls for a measure that
would amount to a reasonable restriction.
35. It may be stressed that in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum
C case, this Court had banned the tanneries when it was found that they
were causing immense damage to the environment. Thus, environment
protection, which is a facet of Article 21, was given supremacy over the
right to carry on business enshrined in Article 19(1)(g). We state at the
cost of repetition that right of health, which is recognised as a facet of
Article 21 of the Constitution and, therefore, is a fundamental right,
D assumes greater importance. It is not only the petitioners and other
applicants who have intervened in support of the petitioners but the issue
involves millions of persons living in Delhi and NCR, whose right to
health is at stake. However, for the time being, without going into this
debate in greater details, our endeavour is to strive at balancing of two
E rights, namely, right of the petitioners under Article 21 and right of the
manufacturers and traders under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
36. Almost for the same reasons, argument predicated on Article
25 of the Constitution need not detain us. We proceed on the assumption
that burning of crackers during Diwali is a part of religious practice.
F The question is as to whether it should be allowed to be continued in the
present form without any regulatory measures, as a part of religious
practice, even if it is proving to be a serious health hazard. We feel that
Article 25 is subject to Article 21 and if a particular religious practice is
threatening the health and lives of people, such practice is not to entitled
to protection under Article 25. In any case, balancing can be done here
G as well by allowing the practice subject to those conditions which ensure
nil or negligible effect on health.
37. We now deal with the argument that banning the sale of
firecrackers may lead to extreme economic hardship, namely, on the
one hand loss of substantial revenue and on the other hand unemployment
H
ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA 495
AND OTHERS [A. K. SIKRI, J.]
to lakhs of persons. This brings up the issue of connect or relationship A
between the law and economics. This aspect was considered by this
Court in Shivashakti Sugars Limited v. Shree Renuka Sugar Limited
and Others, (2017) 7 SCC 729, and the relevant portion whereof is
reproduced below:
“43...Interface between Law and Economics is much more B
relevant in today’s time when the country has ushered into the
era of economic liberalisation, which is also termed as
“globalisation” of economy. India is on the road of economic growth.
It has been a developing economy for number of decades and all
efforts are made, at all levels, to ensure that it becomes a fully
developed economy. Various measures are taken in this behalf by C
the policy-makers. The judicial wing, while undertaking the task
of performing its judicial function, is also required to perform its
role in this direction. It calls for an economic analysis of law
approach, most commonly referred to as “Law and Economics”
[ Richard A. Posner in his book Frontiers of Legal Theory D
explains this concept as follows:”Economic analysis of law has
heuristic, descriptive and normative aspects. As a heuristic, it seeks
to display underlying unities in legal doctrines and institutions; in
its descriptive mode, it seeks to identify the economic logic and
effects of doctrines and institutions and the economic causes of
legal change; in its normative aspect it advises Judges and other E
policy-makers on the most efficient methods of regulating
conduct through law. The range of its subject-matter has become
wide, indeed all-encompassing. Exploiting advances in the
economics of nonmarket behaviour, economic analysis of law has
expanded far beyond its original focus on antitrust, taxation, F
public utility regulation, corporate finance, and other areas of
explicitly economic regulation. (And within that domain, it has
expanded to include such fields as property and contract law.)
The “new” economic analysis of law embraces such nonmarket,
or quasi-nonmarket, fields of law as tort law, family law, criminal
law, free speech, procedure, legislation, public international law, G
the law of intellectual property, the rules governing the trial and
appellate process, environmental law, the administrative process,
the regulation of health and safety, the laws forbidding
discrimination in employment, and social norms viewed as a source
H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A of, an obstacle to, and a substitute for formal law.”Posner also
mentioned that this interface between Law and Economics might
grandly be called “Economic Theory of Law”, which is built on a
pioneering article by Ronald Coase [R.H. Coase, “The Problem
of Social Cost”, 3 Journal of Law and Economics 1 (1960)]: ”The
“Coase Theorem” holds that where market transaction costs are
B
zero, the law’s initial assignment of rights is irrelevant to
efficiency, since if the assignment is inefficient the parties will
rectify it by a corrective transaction. There are two important
corollaries. The first is that the law, to the extent interested in
promoting economic efficiency, should try to minimize transaction
C costs, for example by defining property rights clearly, by making
them readily transferable, and by creating cheap and effective
remedies for breach of contract.…The second corollary of the
Coase Theorem is that where, despite the law’s best efforts, market
transaction costs remain high, the law should simulate the market’s
allocation of resources by assigning property rights to the highest-
D
valued users. An example is the fair-use doctrine of copyright
law, which allows writers to publish short quotations from a
copyrighted work without negotiating with the copyright holder.
The costs of such negotiations would usually be prohibitive; if
they were not prohibitive, the usual result would be an agreement
E to permit the quotation, and so the doctrine of fair use brings about
the result that the market would bring about if market
transactions were feasible.”] . In fact, in certain branches of Law
there is a direct impact of Economics and economic
considerations play predominant role, which are even recognised
as legal principles. Monopoly laws (popularly known as “Anti-
F
trust Laws” in USA) have been transformed by Economics. The
issues arising in competition laws (which has replaced monopoly
laws) are decided primarily on economic analysis of various
provisions of the Competition Commission Act. Similar approach
is to be necessarily adopted while interpreting bankruptcy laws or
G even matters relating to corporate finance, etc. The impress of
Economics is strong while examining various facets of the issues
arising under the aforesaid laws. In fact, economic evidence plays
a big role even while deciding environmental issues. There is a
growing role of Economics in contract, labour, tax, corporate and
H
ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA 497
AND OTHERS [A. K. SIKRI, J.]
other laws. Courts are increasingly receptive to economic A
arguments while deciding these issues. In such an environment it
becomes the bounden duty of the Court to have the economic
analysis and economic impact of its decisions.”
38. Applying the aforesaid principle, in the first blush it may appear
that the aforesaid argument has substantial force in it. However, that B
would be only one side of the picture as there are two contra arguments
which are sufficient to take the sheen out of the aforesaid plea. First
aspect is that the argument of economic hardship is pitched against right
to health and life. When the Court is called upon to protect the right to
life, economic effect of a particular measure for the protection of such
right to health will have to give way to this fundamental right. Second C
factor, which is equally important, is that the economic loss to the State
is pitched against the economic loss in the form of cost of treatment for
treating the ailments with which people suffer as a result of burning of
these crackers. Health hazards in the form of various diseases that are
the direct result of burning of crackers have already been noted above. D
It leads to asthma, coughing, bronchitis, retarded nervous system
breakdown and even cognitive impairment. Some of the diseases continue
on a prolonged basis. Some of these which are caused because of high
level of PM2.5 are even irreversible. In such cases, patients may have to
continue to get the medical treatment for much longer period and even
for life. Though there are no statistics as to what would be the cost for E
treating such diseases which are as a direct consequence of fireworks
on these occasions like Diwali, it can safely be said that this may also be
substantial. It may be more than the revenue which is generated from
the manufacturers of the crackers. However, we say no more for want
of precise statistical data in this behalf. F
39. With this, we come to the most important issue, viz. whether
there has to be a complete ban on display of fireworks during Diwali or
it can be controlled/regulated in a manner which may not result into air
pollution or may be least intrusive.
40. It would be significant to mention at this stage that there have G
been lots of efforts for production of firecrackers which do not contain
harmful chemicals and thereby not causing air pollution, which are even
termed as ‘Green Crackers’. The Union of India was asked to delve
on this aspect. In fact, during the hearing of this matter, order was
H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A passed on August 14, 2018 giving direction to respondent No.1 to give its
complete suggestions to deal with the problems and issues involved which
have been recapitulated above. This order reads as under:
“Further arguments heard in these matters. Arguments have not
been concluded.
B We are of the opinion that Union of India/Ministry of
Environment should come out with its concrete suggestions to
deal with problems and issues which are involved in these
petitions and what short term measures can be adopted to tackle
the pollution problem which occurs due to firecrackers during
C Diwali. Such affidavit shall be filed by or before next date of
hearing.
List on 21.8.2018.”
41. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, respondent No.1 has filed
its affidavit on August 21, 2018. This affidavit sates that the Ministry
D consulted : (i) The Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) -
National Environment Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), (ii)
PESO, and (iii) CPCB regarding concrete solutions and short-term
measures to be adopted to tackle the pollution problem which occurs
due to firecrackers during Diwali. Suggestions are received from the
E aforesaid bodies which are annexed as Annexures R-1, R-2 and R-3
respectively. Based on those suggestions, the Ministry has given the
following short-term measures/actions which it proposes to tackle the
pollution problem due to firecrackers during forthcoming Diwali in
November 2018:
F “I. To address issue of high contents of unburnt material or
partially combusted material due to usage of poor quality of
raw material, Raw Material Characterisation Facilities shall
be established to maintain quality of the raw materials in gun
powder and flash powder as per specifications of PESO.
Testing of raw materials shall be initiated at CSIR - Kaliswari
G Joint Facility or PESO or any of the other manufacturer with
requisite facilities.
II. Use of Reduced Emission firecrackers (Improved crackers) -
(a) Avoidance of use of ash as desiccant or filler materials in
H
ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA 499
AND OTHERS [A. K. SIKRI, J.]
crackers for reduction in particulate mater by 15-20%. These A
can be implemented subject to approval by PESO, and (b)
usage of charcoal meeting specifications of explosives and
pyrotechnics as prescribed by PESO.
III. Use of Reduced Emission firecrackers (Green crackers: Safe
water and air sprinklers (SWAS) - Low emission sound and B
light emitting functional crackers with PM reduction by
30-35% and significant reduction in NOx and SO2 due to
in-situ water generation as dust suppressant and low cost due
to usage of low cost oxidants. These can be implemented
subject to approval by PESO.
C
IV. PESO will ensure fireworks with permitted chemicals only to
be purchased/possessed/sold/used during Diwali and shall test
and check for the presence of banned chemicals like
lithium/arsenic/antimony/lead/ mercury. PESO will ensure
suspension of the licenses of manufacturers of such fireworks
items and appropriate disposal of such stock. D
V. PESO will ensure that only those crackers whose decibel
(sound) level are within the limits are allowed in the market
and will ensure to take action by suspending the licenses of
the manufacturers on such violations and disposal of such lots.
E
VI. Diwali data of 2017 shows that average PM2.5 was 604
ug/m3, whereas, Aluminum and Barium in PM2.5 were 159
ug/m3 (about 4 times of AAQCVs) wand 35 ug/m3 (about 9
times of AAQCVs) respectively. Iron was well within the
prescribed limits. Aluminum is used as fuel in fireworks in
and to give white brilliant sparkle. Ba is added to give only F
attractive green colour which is not essential for
pyrotechnics. Aluminum may cause dermatitis and having
bio-accumulation potential in case of long exposure. Ba salts
emit poisonous gas causing respiratory problem in short-term
exposure too and may have other health complications in G
long-term exposure. Therefore, as immediate measure, baning
of Barium salts in fireworks may be considered. PESO may
be asked to review the chemical composition of fireworks,
particularly reducing Aluminum content.
H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A VII. CPCB and respective State Pollution Control Boards/
Pollution Control Committees (SPCBs/PCCs) of the States
and Union Territories shall carry out short-term monitoring in
their cities for 14 days (commencing from 7 days prior to
Diwali and ending 7 days after Diwali) for the parameters
namely, Aluminum, Barium, Iron apart from the regulatory
B
parameters against the short-term Ambient Air Quality
Criteria Values (AAQCVs) proposed by CPCB with regard
to bursting of firecrackers. This will help in generation of
data on pollution caused by the bursting of firecrackers and
would be helpful for regulation and control quantity of
C Aluminum, Barium and Iron used in the manufacture of
firecrackers.
VIII. The manufacture, sale and use of joined firecrackers (series
crackers or laris) may be banned as the same causes huge
air, noise and solid waste problems.
D IX. Major Indian cities may explore the option of community
firecracking with strict time restriction as adopted in some
countries. Other restriction that can be explored include -
bursting of firecrackers may be allowed only in the areas/
fields pre-identified and pre-designated by respective State
E Governments.
X. Extensive public awareness campaigns shall be taken up by the
Central Government/State Governments/ Schools/Colleges in-
forming the public about the harmful effects of firecrackers.”
42. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid suggestions strive a
F nice balance between the two competing interests. We accept the
aforesaid measures as suggested by the Union of India and direct the
Union of India and other concerned authorities to implement the same
with immediate effect. In view thereof, following specific directions are
issued:
G (i) The crackers with reduced emission (improved crackers) and
green crackers, as mentioned in Suggestion Nos. II and III above
only would be permitted to be manufactured and sold.
(ii) As a consequence, production and sale of crackers other than
those mentioned in Suggestion Nos. II and III is hereby banned.
H
ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA 501
AND OTHERS [A. K. SIKRI, J.]
(iii) The manufacture, sale and use of joined firecrackers (series A
crackers or laris) is hereby banned as the same causes huge air,
noise and solid waste problems.
(iv) The sale shall only be through licensed traders and it shall be
ensured that these licensed traders are selling those firecrackers
which are permitted by this order. B
(v) No e-commerce websites, including Flipkart, Amazon etc., shall
accept any online orders and effect online sales. Any such
e-commerce companies found selling crackers online will be
hauled up for contempt of court and the Court may also pass, in
that eventuality, orders of monetary penalties as well. C
(vi) Barium salts in the fireworks is also hereby banned.
(vii) PESO is directed to review the clinical composition of fireworks,
particularly reducing Aluminum content, and shall submit its
report in respect thereof within a period of two weeks from
today. For undertaking this exercise, PESO would also associate D
FRDC.
(viii) Even those crackers which have already been produced and
they do not fulfill the conditions mentioned in Suggestion Nos. II
and III above will not be allowed to be sold in Delhi and NCR.
E
(ix) PESO will ensure fireworks with permitted chemicals only to
be purchased/possessed/sold/used during Diwali and all other
religious festivals, of any religion whatsoever, and other occasions
like marriages, etc. It shall test and check for the presence of
banned chemicals like Lithium/Arsenic/ Antimony/Lead/
Mercury. F
(x) PESO will ensure suspension of the licenses of manufacturers
of such fireworks items and appropriate disposal of such stock.
(xi) PESO will ensure that only those crackers whose decibel
(sound) level are within the limits are allowed in the market and
will ensure to take action by suspending the licenses of the G
manufacturers on such violations and disposal of such lots. To
add to it, as mentioned in the order dated September 12, 2017,
the directions issued and restrictions imposed in the order passed
H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A by this Court on July 18, 2005 in Noise Pollution (V) shall
continue to be in force.
(xii) Direction Nos. 4 to 9 and 11 contained in the order dated
September 12, 2017 shall continue to operate and are reiterated
again.
B (xiii) Extensive public awareness campaigns shall be taken up by
the Central Government/State Governments/Schools/ Colleges
informing the public about the harmful effects of firecrackers.
(xiv) On Diwali days or on any other festivals like Gurpurab etc.,
when such fireworks generally take place, it would strictly be
C from 8:00 p.m. till 10:00 p.m. only. On Christmas even and
New Year eve, when such fireworks start around midnight,
i.e. 12:00 a.m., it would be from 11:55 p.m. till 12:30 a.m. only.
(xv) The Union of India, Government of NCT of Delhi and the
State Governments of the NCR would permit community
D firecracking only (for Diwali and other festivals etc. as
mentioned above), wherever it can be done. For this purpose,
particular area/fields would be pre-identified and predesignated
by the concerned authorities. This exercise shall be completed
within a period of one week from today so that the public at
E large is informed about the designated places one week before
Diwali. The areas designated now for the purpose of Diwali
shall be valid for community firecracking on other occasions/
festivals as well, as mentioned above. Even for marriages
and other occasions, sale of improved crackers and green
crackers is only permitted.
F
Insofar as other States are concerned, an endeavour shall be
made by them also to explore the feasibility of community
firecracking. However, it is made clear that Direction No.
(xiv) pertaining to the duration within which fireworks can
take place on all such occasions would be applicable throughout
G India. Similarly, Direction No. (xiii) for extensive public
awareness campaigns is also a pan India direction.
(xvi) All the official respondents, and particularly the Police, shall
ensure that fireworks take place only during the designated
H
ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA 503
AND OTHERS [A. K. SIKRI, J.]
time and at designated places, as mentioned above. They shall A
also ensure that there is no sale of banned firecrackers. In
case any violation is found, the Station House Officer (SHO)
of the concerned Police Station of the area shall be held
personally liable for such violation and this would amount to
committing contempt of the Court, for which such SHO(s)
B
would be proceeded against.
(xvii) CPCB and respective State Pollution Control Boards/
Pollution Control Committees (SPCBs/PCCs) of the States
and Union Territories shall carry out short-term monitoring in
their cities for 14 days (commencing from 7 days prior to
Diwali and ending 7 days after Diwali) for the parameters C
namely, Aluminum, Barium, Iron apart from the regulatory
parameters against the short-term Ambient Air Quality Criteria
Values (AAQCVs) proposed by CPCB with regard to bursting
of firecrackers. This will help in generation of data on pollution
caused by the bursting of firecrackers and would be helpful D
for regulation and control quantity of Aluminum, Barium and
Iron used in the manufacture of firecrackers.
43. One clarification needs to be given at this stage. Our discussion
pertaining to the arguments based on Article 19(1)(g), Article 25 as well
as the argument of loss of substantial revenue and unemployment, in E
cases the manufacture and sale of the firecrackers is totally banned, is
prima facie and we have not given our conclusive determination. It is
because of want of detailed studies on various aspects which have been
mentioned and taken note of during discussion in this order. However,
we also make it clear that, prima facie, we do not find much merit in
these arguments for which we have given our reasons in brief. F
44. Having regard to the overall circumstances, we have decided
that, for the time being, a balanced approach to tackle this problem is
needed, which may take care of the concerns of both the parties and, at
the same time, provide a reasonable and adequate solution. When the
picture would become clearer after the requisite studies/research is G
undertaken, more stringent measures can be adopted in future if the
situation so warrants.
H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.
A 45. All the interlocutory applications seeking impleadment,
intervention, directions, modification, etc. are disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
46. The writ petitions be listed on December 11, 2018.
B
Divya Pandey Directions issued.
C
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "air pollution"Sign in to search