1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

IA NO. 92862 OF 2017

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 728 OF 2015

ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S)

W I T H

IA NOS. 94427, 94429, 95202, 96202 AND 96755 OF 2017

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 728 OF 2015

J U D G M E N T

A.K. SIKRI, J.

Arjun Gopal and others (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners)

2

have filed Writ  Petition (Civil)  No.  728 of  2015 seeking wide ranging

reliefs against the use of fireworks (including fire crackers), prevention of

harmful crop burning, dumping of malba and other further steps towards

environmental  purity.  Along with this,  the petitioners had also filed a

miscellaneous application seeking interim relief, which was numbered as

IA No.4.   The  petitioners  had pressed for  interim relief  in  respect  of

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 fire crackers during Diwali last year.  It was pointed out that

onset of winter itself  deteriorates air  quality in this region and it  gets

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.  Air pollution had gone up 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 by individuals as it would

3

have been difficult to monitor and enforce the burning of the crackers by

the citizenry.

2) 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  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 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, 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…”

3) 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 of

4

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:

“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 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 be dispensed with if the Central Government considers that in 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,  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.

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.”

5

4) 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.  It is not necessary to give the

details of the orders which were passed in this behalf.  In the meantime,

the manufacturers of fire crackers as well as licence holders also filed

applications  for  modification  of  the  said  interim  order;  one  such

application being — IA No.  52448 of  2017,  which has culminated in

passing the orders dated September 12, 2017.  A perusal of this order

clinchingly reveals that the Court has recognised the serious problem of

air pollution in Delhi and NCR and the manner in which it has worsened

due to fireworks during  Diwali  days in the year 2016.  The Court also

took note of the steps which were taken from time to time by various

authorities to reduce air pollution and after the passing of the aforesaid

order  dated  November  11,  2016.   The  Court  also  discussed  the

provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosive Rules, 2008

framed thereunder and further steps which were required to be taken in

this behalf.

5) In  this  Order  as well,  the Court  has acknowledged the dire need for

improving air quality, which was the result of various reasons (burning of

crackers/  fireworks  being  one  of  them)  as  well  as  importance  of

6

elimination of air pollution which was paramount for the health of the

residents of Delhi and NCR. The Court also accepted that one of the

possible  methods  for  reducing  it  during  Diwali  is  by  continuing  the

suspension  of  licences  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 licences

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 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 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 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 Delhi and the NCR.  The graded and balanced approach is not intended to dilute our primary

7

concern which is and remains the health of everybody and the human right  to  breathe  good quality  air  or  at  least  not  be compelled to breathe poor quality air.  Generally speaking this must take precedence over the commercial or other interest of  the applicant  and those granted a permanent  licence to possess 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  bursting  fireworks  around  Diwali.   Certainly, there were other causes as well, but even so the contribution of  the  bursting  of  fireworks  cannot  be  glossed  over. 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.  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 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 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.”

6) It is 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,  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

8

following orders and directions are required to be issued and we do so:

(1)  The directions issued by this Court in  Sadar Bazar Fire 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.

(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 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.

(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 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  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 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

9

of Delhi and the corresponding Department in other States in the NCR shall immediately formulate a plan of action, in not more than 15 days, to reach out to children in all the schools through the school  staff,  volunteers and NGOs to sensitize and  educate  school  children  on  the  health  hazards  and ill-effects of breathing polluted air, including air that is polluted due to  fireworks.  School  children should  be encouraged to reduce, if not eliminate, the bursting of fireworks as a part of any festivities.

(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 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 manufacture of fireworks is prohibited.

(10) Fireworks containing aluminium, sulphur, potassium and barium may be sold in Delhi and in the NCR, provided the composition already approved by PESO is maintained. It  is the  responsibility  of  PESO  to  ensure  compliance  of  the standards it has formulated.  

(11)  Since there are enough fireworks available  for  sale in Delhi and the NCR, the transport of fireworks into Delhi and the  NCR  from  outside  the  region  is  prohibited  and  the concerned law enforcement authorities will ensure that there is  no  further  entry  of  fireworks  into  Delhi  and the  NCR till further orders. In our opinion, even 50,00,000 kg of fireworks is far more than enough for Dussehra and Diwali in 2017. The permanent  licensees are 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.

(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 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.

10

(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  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 metals and constituents used in fireworks, a research study must be jointly carried out by the CPCB and the FDRC laying down appropriate standards for ambient air quality in relation to the bursting of fireworks and the release of their constituents in the air. While Schedule VII of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 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 constituents in the ambient air.  The  CPCB  has  assured  us  that  it  will  complete  the exercise by 15th September, 2017 but  keeping in 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 before 30th September, 2017.

(15)  In  any  event,  a  research  study  also  needs  to  be conducted  on  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  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.

(16) Keeping in mind the adverse effects of air pollution, the human  right  to  breathe  clean  air  and  the  human  right  to health, the Central Government and other authorities should

11

consider  encouraging  display  fireworks  through  community participation rather than individual bursting of fireworks.”

7) After the aforesaid order is passed, many applications (subject matter of

this Order) have been filed seeking modification of some of the aforesaid

directions.  Pertinently, such applications have come from both sides.

8) As far as the petitioners are concerned, they have filed IA No. 96202 of

2017 with the prayer for modification of the order by removing direction

Nos. 5 and 10 to 13.  In essence, it is submitted that earlier order dated

November 11, 2016, which suspended the issuance of licences in full,

be restored.  

IA No. 95202 of 2017 is filed by manufacturers of the fireworks

wherein it  is prayed that suspension order dated November 11, 2016

should not have been removed partially, and the said suspension order

be lifted in its entirety.   

IA No. 96755 of 2017 is preferred by the temporary licence holders

who are concerned with direction No.1 in the order dated September 12,

2017.  Though,  the applicants in  this application accept  the fact  that

Rule 86 of the Explosive Rules lays down the requirement of distance

which  is  to  be  maintained  by  such  licensees  from other  places  like

schools,  hospitals,  residences,  educational  institutions,  etc.  to  ensure

12

that the places from which these crackers are sold do not become fire

hazards,  submission is that  notwithstanding the aforesaid Rule, since

the temporary licence holders are allowed to operate within the vicinity

for last number of years, they should be granted at least one more year

to  bring  their  operations  in  conformity  with  the  said  Rules.   In  this

application they have also sought modification of direction No.5 whereby

Delhi  Police is directed to reduce the grant of  temporary licences by

about  50%  of  the  number  of  licences  which  were  granted  in  2016.

Request made is that the number should not be reduced drastically by

half and reduction should have been much lesser than 50%.   

IA No. 92862 of 2017 is filed by certain manufacturers of these

fireworks with the submission that direction No.11 should be modified

and these manufacturers who are having their depots where their stocks

of  fireworks  are  lying  in  the  NCR,  there  should  be  free  flow  of

transportation of these fireworks between Delhi and NCR.   

IA No. 94427 of 2017 is an application filed by an NGO seeking

impleadment in the writ  petition and it  has also filed IA No. 94429 of

2017 praying for similar reliefs as that of the petitioners, viz. prohibiting

manufacture,  suspension/  cancellation  of  manufacturing  licences  and

prohibiting issuance of temporary licences during Diwali 2017.

13

9) It  is clear from the aforesaid that whereas the petitioners on the one

hand want restoration of the order of complete suspension of licences by

restoring the Order passed on November 11, 2016, the manufacturers,

traders and licence holders of the fireworks/fire crackers want that the

relaxation given in the impugned order should be further liberalised.  In a

way, both the parties are seeking review of the said order by filing these

miscellaneous applications.    

10) It is a matter of record that all these parties were heard at length

before passing the judgment dated September 12, 2017.  Moreover, as

already pointed  out  above,  even  the  judgment  dated  September  12,

2017 accepts the problem of air pollution.  No doubt, it mentions that

bursting of fire crackers is not the only cause for alarming air pollution in

Delhi and NCR, but it is also acknowledged that it is one of the major

causes.  It  is also recorded in the judgment that on bursting of these

crackers during Diwali  in 2016, the air quality had sharply deteriorated.

Notwithstanding the same, the Court deemed it proper to adopt graded

approach in reducing and gradually eliminating of air pollution in Delhi

and in NCR caused by bursting of fire crackers.  Because of this reason,

rigours  of  order  dated November  11,  2016 are  relaxed to  the extent

indicated  in  the  said  order.   In  such  a  scenario,  question  of  further

relaxation, as pleaded by the manufacturers and licence holders does

not arise.  We may point out that M/s. C.A. Sundaram and Neeraj K.

14

Kaul,  learned  senior  counsel  as  well  as  other  counsel  for  these

applicants had made detailed submissions in  this  behalf  pointing out

various difficulties.   However, at  the same time,  it  also  could  not  be

disputed that these were the submissions which were made when the

matter was heard earlier and culminated in the Orders dated September

12, 2017.  For this reason, we are not recording the said submissions in

detail.   We  will,  however,  like  to  remark  that  we  bestowed  our

consideration on these submissions but are not inclined to accept the

same.   The  argument  of  Mr.  C.A.  Sundaram  was  that  bursting  of

crackers was not  the only cause of  air  pollution.  There were various

other  reasons  attributable  to  the  aforesaid  phenomena.   He  even

attempted  to  demonstrate  that  the  use  of  fireworks  including  fire

crackers contributed negligibly in worsening the air quality standards in

Delhi and NCR.  However, the material that was relied upon in support

of this submission may not be relevant in the context.  These studies

indicate  the  air  quality  standards  in  Delhi  and  NCR which  generally

prevail throughout the year.  It cannot be denied that there are various

other  factors  which contribute  to  the  air  pollution in  Delhi  and  NCR.

There is a need to tackle those factors as well.  However, what is the

immediate impact of use of fireworks and fire crackers bursting during

Diwali is an altogether different aspect.  To this effect, nothing relevant is

produced.  On the contrary, we have the direct evidence of deterioration

15

of air quality at alarming levels, which happens every year.  As already

pointed out above, burning of these fire crackers during 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.  It is interesting to note

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 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 well.  Irony is

that  when causes are  brought  in  the Court,  there is  resistance from

certain quarters.  It cannot be denied that there are adequate statutory

provisions, aid whereof can be taken to ban the sale of these crackers.

It is one of the functions of the judges, in a democracy, to bridge the

gap between law and the society.   Here, furtunately, there is no such

gap and the Court is only become facilitator in invoking the law to fulfill

the need of the society.  

11) Insofar as argument of Mr. Neeraj K. Kaul, learned senior counsel

who appeared for temporary licence holders in I.A. No. 96755 of 2017,

16

suffice it to state that Explosive Rules have to be strictly followed and

complied with.  It is for this reason that Mr. Kaul could not find fault with

Direction No. 1 in the Orders dated September 12, 2017.  These Rules

came into force in the year 2008.  They are in operation for almost 9

years.  Giving further time to these licence holders for complying with

the said statutory provisions is out of question.   

12) Accordingly,  IA  Nos.  92862,  95202  and  96755  of  2017  are

dismissed.

13) Coming to  IA No.  96202 of  2017,  we may state  at  the cost  of

repetition that the petitioners in the writ petition were also heard when

the aforesaid order was passed.  Further, we are not sitting in appeal

over  the  judgment  dated  September  12,  2017.   However,  learned

counsel for the petitioner has made an emphatic and passionate plea on

the following three counts:

(a) In the judgment dated September 12, 2017 the Court has chosen

to adopt graded approach.  However, at that time it was not within

the  knowledge  of  the  petitioners  as  well  as  the  Court  that  the

CPCB had taken a stand,  nearly 20 years ago,  that  Sulphur in

fireworks  should  not  be  permitted  as  Sulphur  on  combustion

produces Sulphur Dioxide and the same is extremely harmful to

17

health.   The  CPCB  has  in  the  said  proceedings  stated  that

between 9:00 pm to midnight on Diwali  day the levels of Sulphur

Dioxide content in the air is 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 by way of

their  letter  dated  November  04,  1996  to  the  Commissioner  of

Police.  Neither the CPCB nor the Delhi Police divulged this fact to

this Court.

Insofar as this plea is concerned, except that similar attempt made

in  proceeding  before  Delhi  High  Court  20  years’  ago,  no  fresh

material  has been brought  on record.   The  stand taken by the

CPCB at  that  time was the same which  was taken before  this

Court when Orders dated November 11, 2016 or September 12,

2017 were passed.  CPCB, therefore, has been consistent in its

stand.   This  was  stressed  by  Mr.  Panjwani,  learned  counsel

appearing for CPCB before us as well, who even took the decision

of supporting the ban.  Therefore, in substance, it is not the new

material which is brought.  On the contrary, we find that the main

objective behind this move, by making reference to the aforesaid

proceedings  in  Delhi  High  Court  and  in  the  process  filing  one

particular annexure which was the report submitted at that time to

18

the Court, was an attempt to take the matter away from a particular

Bench.  This is not a healthy practice.  We denounce the same and

place on record our strongest condemnation.  We are leaving the

matter at that simply because of the reason that insofar as present

petition is concerned it has raised a very important public cause

and it needs serious and adequate consideration.  

 (b) Another submission was that when the Order dated November 11,

2016 was passed suspending the licences, the primary reason for

passing  such  an  order  was  rising  of  pm  levels  at  alarming

proportion because of burning of crackers during Diwali, which had

direct impact thereupon.  Insofar as harmful effect of the materials

used in the manufacture of fireworks is concerned, that is another

aspect and it is on this aspect that the CPCB was directed to carry

out  further  studies.   Therefore,  insofar  as  suspension  of  the

licences is concerned, there was no reason to relax that condition.

(c) It was further pointed out that the previous Order dated November

11, 2016 was passed immediately after  Diwali.  But the effect of

that  order  would  not  be  discernible  as  in  the  judgment  dated

September  12,  2017,  the  said  order  stands  relaxed.   It  was

pleaded that at least for one Diwali season this suspension should

have continued in order to find out the effect thereof.

19

14) These aspects highlighted by the learned counsel appear to be

convincing.  We are of the view that the order suspending the licences

should  be  given  one chance  to  test  itself  in  order  to  find  out  as  to

whether there would be positive effect of this suspension, particularly

during Diwali  period.  Insofar as adverse effects of burning of crackers

during Diwali are concerned, those have been witnessed year after year.

The  air  quality  deteriorates  abysmally  and  alarmingly  and  the  city

chokes thereby.  It leads to closing the schools and the authorities are

compelled to take various measures on emergent  basis,  when faced

with “health emergency” situation.  This very situation had occurred on

the  very  next  morning  after  Diwali  in  the  year  2016.   It  resulted  in

passing  the  order  dated  November  11,  2016.   This  order  prevailed

during the year but the impact and effect of this order remains to be

tested on  Diwali days.  Going by these considerations, we are of the

opinion that  the judgment dated September 12,  2017 passed by this

Court should be made effective only from November 01, 2017.  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 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

20

further sale of  the crackers in Delhi  and NCR. Further  orders in  this

behalf can be passed on assessing the situation that would emerge after

this Diwali season.  IA No. 96202 of 2017 is ordered accordingly.

IA  Nos.  94427  and  94429  of  2017  stand  disposed  of  in  the

aforesaid terms.

.............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI)

.............................................J. (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)

.............................................J. (ASHOK BHUSHAN)

NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 09, 2017.