The Supreme Court has called for a balance between religious sentiments and public health while considering restrictions on firecrackers in Delhi-NCR, warning that orders which cannot be enforced on the ground may be viewed by citizens as coercive.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana made the observations during a suo motu hearing on pollution-related issues in the region. The hearing covered firecrackers, stubble burning and solid waste management.
The court indicated that people should be encouraged to adopt less polluting ways of celebrating festivals instead of relying only on restrictions imposed through court orders. The bench also stressed the importance of public awareness about the harmful effects of firecrackers and the need to promote safer alternatives.
The Chief Justice said the court did not want to hurt religious sentiments, but also urged citizens to come forward and adopt lower-pollution practices. The court emphasised that awareness among citizens and civil society could be the most effective way to advance the issue.
During the hearing, the bench cautioned against issuing restrictions that authorities may not be able to implement effectively. The court said it would have to be careful while passing any order, particularly when enforcement capacity was limited. The Chief Justice called for a practical approach to restrictions that people may otherwise perceive as forced action.
The bench suggested that people could be given sufficient time and guidance to celebrate festivals in their preferred manner, while keeping a specified time window for bursting firecrackers, as has been done earlier. It also discussed measures to restrict the sale of firecrackers that cause higher levels of pollution and to encourage products or practices that generate less pollution.
The court further suggested that citizens should be informed about which firecrackers are more harmful. It referred to traditional practices such as lighting lamps and using sparklers, while also stressing the need to reduce the overall use of firecrackers and follow any prescribed time limits.
The health dimension of the issue was raised during the hearing by amicus curiae Aparajita Singh. Senior counsel Singh referred particularly to risks faced by children, older people and those with vulnerable health conditions. The observations place the firecracker debate within the wider challenge of managing seasonal pollution in a densely populated urban region.
The hearing also addressed stubble burning. Justice Bagchi referred to proposals for purchasing crop residue and exploring its commercial use. The Chief Justice said crop residue had acquired commercial value and that markets could be developed to provide possible benefits to farmers. The court indicated that suggestions on the matter could be placed before the Commission for Air Quality Management.
The observations do not, as reported, amount to a final decision imposing a new firecracker regime across Delhi-NCR. The court’s discussion instead points to a combination of time-bound use, restrictions on more polluting products, public awareness and measures that authorities can realistically enforce.
