Arjun Gopal Vs Union of India .

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 1 of 44

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

I.A. No. 52448 of 2017

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 728 of 2015 Arjun Gopal and Ors. ….Petitioners

versus Union of India and Ors. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. A large number of disparate prayers have been made in this public

interest litigation initiated by the petitioners under Article 32 of the

Constitution, but for the time being we are only concerned with the first

prayer. This is to the effect that this Court may issue a writ of mandamus or

any other appropriate writ or direction to ban the use of fireworks, sparklers

and minor explosives in any form, during festivals or otherwise.

2. The public interest relief sought for is required to be considered from

two perspectives: firstly, from preventing air pollution through the bursting

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 2 of 44

of fireworks and secondly, by invoking the provisions of the Explosives Act,

1884 and the Explosives Rules, 2008 framed thereunder for preventing air

pollution by restricting the possession and sale of fireworks in the National

Capital Region.

Fireworks and air pollution in 2016

3. The prayer for a complete prohibition on the sale of fireworks due to

pollution in the air caused by the bursting of fireworks was considered at an

interim stage by this Court and a detailed order passed on 11th November,

2016.1 The manufacturers and suppliers of fireworks primarily based in

Sivakasi (Tamil Nadu) moved an application on or about 5th July, 2017 for

modification of that interim order. The modification application is registered

as I.A. No. 52448 of 2017 and we now propose to decide that application.

4. The background for the interim order passed on 11th November, 2016

is that Diwali was celebrated in 2016 on 30th October. On the next day, it was

discovered that PM2.5 levels in the air had crossed 700 µg/m3 being among the

highest levels recorded in the world and about 29 times above the standards

laid down by the World Health Organization (WHO). We need not

1 Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, (2017) 1 SCC 412

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 3 of 44

delve into the details given in the order since there is no dispute that the air

in Delhi and in most parts of the National Capital Region (NCR) was stiflingly

polluted. This resulted in many falling sick and others having to purchase face

masks for personal use and install air purifiers in buildings.

5. The conclusion that the air in the NCR and particularly in Delhi was

polluted is not only based on the above information but is also based on the

statutory standards or the National Ambient Air Quality Standards laid down

in India. The standards are in Schedule VII of the Environment (Protection)

Rules, 1986. Broadly stated the presence of PM2.5 should range between 40

and 60 µg/m3 and the presence of PM10 should range between 60 and 100

µg/m3. For the purposes of a lay person understanding this, it would be

enough to say that air quality index or AQI is dependent on eight pollutants

and the categorization based on the presence of these pollutants is as follows:

AQI Range Category 0-50 Good 51-100 Satisfactory 101-200 Moderately polluted 201-300 Poor 301-400 Very poor 401-500 Severe

In Delhi, during November 2016 the AQI was way above 500 on several days and

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 4 of 44

had even crossed 700 the day after Diwali. The standards laid down in Schedule VII

of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 are as follows:

SCHEDULE VII

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

S. No.

Pollutant Time weighted Average

Concentration in Ambient Air

Industrial, Residential, Rural and Other Area

Ecologically Sensitive Area (notified by Central Government)

Methods of measurement

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1. Sulphur

Dioxide (SO2), µg/m 3

Annual* 24 hours**

50

80

20

80

- Improved West and Gaeke

- Ultraviolet fluorescence

2. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), µg/m3

Annual* 24 hours**

40

80

30

80

- Modified Jacob & Hochheiser (Na- Arsenite)

- Chemiluminescence 3. Particulate

Matter (size less than 10µm) or PM10 µg/m3

Annual* 24 hours**

60

100

60

100

- Gravimetric - TOEM - Beta attenuation

4. Particulate Matter (size less than 2.5µm) or PM2.5 µg/m3

Annual* 24 hours**

40

60

40

60

- Gravimetric - TOEM - Beta attenuation

5. Ozone (O3) µg/m3

8 hours* * 1 hour**

100

180

100

180

- UV photometric - Chemiluminescence - Chemical Method

6. Lead (Pb) µg/m3

Annual* 24 hours**

0.50

1.0

0.50

1.0

- AAS/ICP method after sampling on EPM 2000 or equivalent filter paper

- ED-XRF using Teflon filter

7. Carbon Monoxide (CO) mg/m3

8 hours* * 1 hour**

02

04

02

04

- Non Dispersive, Infra Red (NDIR) spectroscopy

8. Ammonia (NH3) µg/m3

Annual* 24 hours**

100

400

100

400

- Chemiluminescence - Indophenol blue

method

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 5 of 44

9. Benzene (C6H6) µg/m3

Annual* 05 05 - Gas chromatography based continuous analyzer

- Adsorption and Desorption followed by GC analysis

10. Benzo(α) Pyrene (BaP) - particulate phase only, ng/m3

Annual* 01 01 - Solvent extraction followed by HPLC /GC analysis

11. Arsenic (As), µg/m3

Annual* 06 06 - AAS/ICP method after sampling on EPM 2000 or equivalent filter paper

12. Nickel (Ni), µg/m3

Annual* 20 20 - AAS/ICP method after sampling on EPM 2000 or equivalent filter paper

* Annual arithmetic mean of minimum 104 measurements in a year at a particular site taken twice a week 24 hourly at uniform intervals.

** 24 hourly or 08 hourly or 1 hourly monitored values, as applicable, shall be complied with 98% of the time in a year, 2% of the time, they may exceed the limits but not on two consecutive days of monitoring.

Notes. - Whenever and wherever monitoring results on two consecutive days of monitoring exceed the limits specified above for the respective category, it shall be considered adequate reason to institute regular or continuous monitoring and further investigations.

6. In the backdrop of these staggeringly high PM2.5 levels and other

information provided by learned counsel appearing for the parties, including

damage to health by breathing in such highly polluted air, this Court directed

the Union of India on 11th November, 2016 to:

(i) Suspend all such licences as permit sale of fireworks, wholesale and retail within the territory of the National Capital Region (NCR).

(ii) The suspension shall remain in force till further orders of this Court.

(iii) No such licences shall be granted or renewed till further orders.

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 6 of 44

7. The directions given by this Court have been implemented and are

presently in operation. It was further directed that the Central Pollution

Control Board (CPCB) will study and prepare a report on the harmful effects

of the materials currently used in the manufacture of fireworks. The report

was to be submitted to this Court within a period of three months.

Notwithstanding the aforesaid order the CPCB has not furnished the report.

Application for modification of the interim order

8. Feeling aggrieved by the continuance of the interim order passed on

11th November, 2016 the concerned manufacturer and supplier of fireworks

moved I.A. No.52448 of 2017 for modification/vacation of the said order. The

applicant was supported by other manufacturers and suppliers.

9. It is stated in the application for modification or vacation of the interim

order that there are 821 fireworks industries situated in and around Sivakasi

and they produce and supply fireworks and sparklers all over the country for

festivals such as Diwali, Dussehra, Christmas, Ramzan and other important

ceremonies. It is further stated that these industries directly employ about 2

lakh people and in addition, about 3 lakhs are employed in ancillary and

subsidiary industries connected with the production and supply of fireworks.

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 7 of 44

10. According to the applicant the National Green Tribunal (NGT)

rendered a decision on 10th November, 2016 in Original Application No.21 of

2014 and other connected matters in which it is recorded that there are seven

major contributors of air pollution in the NCR and these are:

1. Construction activity and carriage of construction material. 2. Burning of Municipal Solid Waste and other waste. 3. Burning of agriculture residue. 4. Vehicular Pollution. 5. Dust on the roads. 6. Industrial and power house emission including fly-ash. 7. Emissions from Hot-Mix Plants and Stone Crushers.

In other words, the submission of the applicant was that fireworks are not a

major contributor of air pollution. We may, however, add that during the

course of submissions, it was accepted by learned counsel for all the parties

that whether or not the bursting of fireworks is a major cause of air pollution

in the NCR, it is certainly one of the causes of air pollution, particularly in

Delhi.

11. The applicant also referred to and relied upon a study conducted by the

Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (IIT-K) in January 2016. The study

is titled “Comprehensive Study on Air Pollution and Green House Gases in

Delhi”. The study was submitted in the form of a report to the Department of

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 8 of 44

Environment of the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Delhi Pollution

Control Committee. The study conducted by IIT-K suggests that the sources

of PM2.5 are several but the bursting of fireworks is not one of them. We have

not been informed whether any use has been made (if at all) of the study.

12. In addition to the aforesaid, the applicant also relied upon a view

expressed by the CPCB before this Court to the effect that poor wind speed

was one of the causes of smog over Delhi particularly in the winter months.

It was also submitted that there are certain other geographical and

meteorological conditions such as temperature, wind direction and boundary

layer that contribute to the presence of smog in Delhi.

13. It was also submitted that the burning of crops or stubbles in Punjab

and Pakistan also caused air pollution in Delhi and indeed this was the case in

October-November 2016. A reference was made to a brief write up along

with an image, released by the Earth Observatory of the National Aeronautics

and Space Agency (NASA) and dated 2nd November, 2016, stating that,

“Punjab ranks among the nation’s top wheat and rice producers. For a few

weeks in October and November, Punjab also becomes a major producer of

air pollution.” A reference was also made to a report in the New York Times

by Geeta Anand on 2nd November, 2016 that an estimated 32 million tons of

leftover straw from rice harvests were burnt in Punjab and Haryana, in spite

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 9 of 44

of an NGT direction against this, and this led to plumes of smoke blackening

the skies in the capital.

14. The applicant drew our attention to the poor air quality in Delhi on the

days prior to Diwali 2016 and for more than a month thereafter. A comparison

was drawn with the air quality recorded by the CPCB in Andhra Pradesh,

Telangana, Karnataka and West Bengal to suggest that on some days prior to

Diwali, the air quality was not particularly healthy in select cities in these

States thereby suggesting that the air is generally polluted in different parts of

the country and the bursting of fireworks may marginally add (if at all) to air

pollution. In this context it was submitted that the bursting of fireworks takes

place only for a couple of days around Diwali and other festive occasions and

that cannot by itself result in a substantial deterioration in air quality all over

the country including Delhi. The bursting of fireworks around Diwali would

have only a temporary and transitory impact and not any long lasting effect.

Therefore, the bursting of fireworks around Diwali does not explain high

PM2.5 levels in Delhi more than even a month after Diwali.

15. During the course of submissions it was pointed out that the Delhi

Pollution Control Committee had issued a direction on 8th November, 2016

under the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,

1981 banning the bursting of fireworks at all times except on religious

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 10 of 44

occasions. It was submitted that this ban is still in force and therefore it cannot

be said that the terrible quality of air in Delhi in November 2016 and thereafter

is attributable only to bursting of fireworks - there are several other factors. It

was submitted that on an overall consideration of the issues, the ban and sale

of fireworks in Delhi and in the NCR should be modified if not lifted.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioners gave us a Note on the harmful and

deleterious effects of some of the chemicals used in fireworks. We have no

doubt and indeed no learned counsel had any doubt that the excessive use of

chemicals in fireworks could have serious and deleterious health effects,

particularly among children. We are, therefore, proceeding on this basis

without reference to the Note since there is no dispute on this aspect. With

this agreement in mind (which has always been there), we had passed an order

on 31st July, 2017 after hearing learned counsel as well as Dr. A.B. Akolkar,

Member Secretary of the CPCB and Mr. K. Sundershan, Deputy Chief

Controller of Explosives, Sivakasi to the effect that fireworks manufactured

by the respondents shall not contain antimony, lithium, mercury, arsenic and

lead in any form whatsoever. We had also directed that it would be the

responsibility of PESO to ensure compliance particularly in Sivakasi. We had

noted that there was some doubt about the health hazards that could be caused

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 11 of 44

by the use of strontium in fireworks and adjourned the matter to hear

submissions in that regard.

Steps taken to reduce air pollution

17. Learned counsel for the parties drew our attention to certain steps that

have been taken to curb air pollution in Delhi around the time of Diwali.

18. The Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO) had laid the

foundation stone of the Fireworks Development Research Centre (FDRC) on

28th November, 2004. This is a specialized Centre which has been operating

now for quite some time. The functions and activities of the Centre are the

following:

1. Research & Development of eco friendly fireworks. 2. Testing of raw materials used in the manufacturing of fireworks. 3. Mechanisation of hazardous process in fireworks industry. 4. Testing of general performance and sound level of fireworks. 5. Rendering guidance for development of new products and

standardization of general products. 6. Improvement of quality control and quality assurance. 7. Imparting training to supervisors and workers of fireworks

factories. 8. Investigation of accidents.

19. It was brought to our notice that the FDRC has done some good work

though related only to a few fireworks that are colloquially referred to as (a)

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 12 of 44

Atom Bomb, (b) Chinese crackers (no reference to China at all), (c) Maroons

and (d) Garland crackers. This study and research relates to the sound caused

by the bursting of these fireworks and the light and colour emitted by them.

No work has been done or study conducted at all with reference to pollution

in the air caused by the bursting of these or other fireworks. We were

informed (somewhat faintly) that this is really the job of the CPCB but the

FDRC is willing to extend full cooperation to the CPCB in arriving at some

definite standards.

20. It was also pointed out that this Court had passed an order on 18th July,

2005 in Noise Pollution (V), in Re.2 to the following effect:

(i) Firecrackers “174. 1. On a comparison of the two systems i.e. the present system of evaluating firecrackers on the basis of noise levels, and the other where the firecrackers shall be evaluated on the basis of chemical composition, we feel that the latter method is more practical and workable in Indian circumstances. It shall be followed unless and until replaced by a better system. 2. The Department of Explosives (DOE) shall undertake necessary research activity for the purpose and come out with the chemical formulae for each type or category or class of firecrackers. DOE shall specify the proportion/composition as well as the maximum permissible weight of every chemical used in manufacturing firecrackers. 3. The Department of Explosives may divide the firecrackers into two categories - (i) sound-emitting firecrackers, and (ii) colour/light- emitting firecrackers.

2 (2005) 5 SCC 733

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 13 of 44

4. There shall be a complete ban on bursting sound-emitting firecrackers between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. It is not necessary to impose restrictions as to time on bursting of colour/light-emitting firecrackers. 5. Every manufacturer shall on the box of each firecracker mention details of its chemical contents and that it satisfies the requirement as laid down by DOE. In case of a failure on the part of the manufacturer to mention the details or in cases where the contents of the box do not match the chemical formulae as stated on the box, the manufacturer may be held liable. 6. Firecrackers for the purpose of export may be manufactured bearing higher noise levels subject to the following conditions: (i) the manufacturer should be permitted to do so only when he has an export order with him and not otherwise; (ii) the noise levels for these firecrackers should conform to the noise standards prescribed in the country to which they are intended to be exported as per the export order; (iii) these firecrackers should have a different colour packing, from those intended to be sold in India; (iv) they must carry a declaration printed thereon something like “not for sale in India” or “only for export to country AB” and so on.

But again these directions were confined to the sound (or noise), colour and

light emitted by the bursting of fireworks and had no reference to air pollution.

21. We were also informed that this Court had passed an order on 16th

October, 2015 in the present petition to the following effect:

“The Union Governments and all the State Governments will give wide publicity both in print and Electronic media to the ill effects of fireworks and advise people accordingly. 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.”

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 14 of 44

In other words, directions have been issued by this Court from time to time to

prevent air pollution around the time of Diwali and to make people aware of

the health hazards of bursting fireworks.

22. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Government of NCT of

Delhi on 26th August 2017 in which it is stated that school children are being

informed about the hazards and ill-effects of indiscriminate bursting of

fireworks by encouraging participation of schools in ‘anti-fire crackers’

campaigns. Through these campaigns, participation of all stakeholders and

eco-clubs is expected and schools are advised to organize innovative

awareness programmes on the issue.

23. It is further stated that the Directorate of Education has advised all

heads of schools to sensitize students and staff members about the ill-effects

of bursting fireworks and to organize programmes for motivating students to

“say no to crackers” and to utilize safe alternatives such as lights, flowers,

paintings, etc. Additionally, heads of schools have been directed to personally

address students to adopt safer measures to celebrate Diwali. It is stated that

since 2010, circulars have been issued by the Directorate to spread the

message of “Say No to Crackers”.

24. Finally, it is stated that on 24th August, 2017 the Directorate of

Education has issued a circular to all heads of schools falling under the

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 15 of 44

Directorate of Education to sensitize students and staff members about the ill-

effects of bursting fireworks.

25. An affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Commissioner of Police

in Delhi on 28th August 2017, in which it is stated that temporary licences for

stocking fireworks can be granted by a Magistrate by virtue of Section 146 of

the Delhi Police Act read with Section 4(c) of the Explosives Act. It is stated

that the temporary licences are granted for 24 days, that is, two days before

Dussehra and two days after Diwali. In any case, no temporary licence is

granted for more than 30 days. In addition, it is stated that in the case of

temporary sheds, a licence is granted for not more than 15 days in terms of

the Explosives Rules.

26. It is stated on behalf of the Commissioner of Police in Delhi that the

maximum quantity of fireworks permissible is 100 kg in terms of Division 2,

sub-division 2 of Schedule I of the Explosives Rules in respect of the

fireworks mentioned therein (high hazard fireworks) and 500 kg under

Division 2, sub-division 1 of Schedule I of the Explosives Rules in respect of

the fireworks mentioned therein (low hazard fireworks).

27. The mandatory conditions laid down in the Explosives Rules are

followed subject to the orders passed by this Court in Sadar Bazar Fire Works

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 16 of 44

(Pucca Shop) Association v. Pankaj Traders & Ors.3 The order passed in

this case on 1st November, 1993 reads as follows :

“It appears that after this Court’s order of 22nd October, 1993, the authorities have issued a circular dated 26.10.93 imposing certain conditions in regard to which the petitioners have no objection, save and except Condition ii(a) which provides that the premises to be used for sale of crackers, etc. shall be at a minimum distance of 15 mtrs. from any such premises used for storage of similar explosives and hazardous materials. After some discussion at the Bar, Mr. Lahiri, the learned counsel for the respondents, states that appropriate instructions will be issued so that temporary licences are not denied on the ground that the cracker shops are adjacent to each other. We have also indicated to Mr. Lahiri that what was intended was that if there is any shop adjacent to the shops in respect of which licence is sought wherein any other highly inflammable and combustible material is being sold, that may be a factor which may weigh with the authority. In view of the statement made by Mr. Lahiri, we do not think it necessary to issue any direction. The proceedings will stand terminated with liberty to mention if there is any difficulty. The application for temporary licences should be processed without delay. The parties may be advised to complete the forms wherever there are deficiencies. With these observations, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of.”

28. It is further submitted that permanent licences have been granted to 20

licensees as on date in Delhi and these have been suspended in view of the

order passed by this Court on 11th November, 2016 (the corresponding figure

for the NCR minus Delhi has not been given to us).

3 SLP (C) Nos. 17327-28/1993

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 17 of 44

29. With regard to the grant of temporary licences, it is stated that in 2016

a total of 1073 applications were received for temporary licences and only 968

temporary licences were issued for a period of 24 days each (the

corresponding figure for the NCR minus Delhi has not been given to us).

30. We were informed by the learned counsel for the Commissioner of

Police that there is a prohibition on bursting fireworks between 10.00 pm and

06.00 am and a prohibition on the bursting of fireworks in silence zones, that

is an area not less than 100 metres around hospitals, educational institutions,

courts, religious places or any other area declared as such by the competent

District Deputy Commissioner of Police.

31. An affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the CPCB on 29th August,

2017 in which it is stated that during Diwali day, the level of metals/

constituents of fireworks indicated by PESO, that is aluminium, sulphur,

potassium and barium are elevated. Some other constituents, such as titanium,

iron, copper, zinc, strontium, antimony and chlorine were found to be in

higher concentration during Diwali day as compared to other days. But the

higher level of these constituents is observed only for one day. According to

the CPCB, to regulate and minimize the adverse effects of fireworks, smoke

and pollutants on human health, the following actions would be of assistance:

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 18 of 44

a. Constituents those mentioned in the specifications of PESO (year 2008) may only be permitted (Aluminium, Sulphur, Potassium and Barium). b. Other constituents unless permitted under specified notification, if any, may not be permitted. c. Health advisories by authorized Medical Institutions for public can be disseminated for public safety.

32. With regard to our order of 31st July, 2017 on the use of strontium in

fireworks, the CPCB is of the view that only strontium chromate is harmful/

dangerous to human health and may cause problems with bone growth, skin

rashes, skin problems and possibly lung cancer. The safe limits of strontium

in the ambient air have not been mentioned by the CPCB.

33. On our asking, as a result of a submission made by learned counsel for

the petitioners, the Union of India filed a Status Report on 31st August 2017

with regard to the import of fireworks from China. It is stated that the import

of any explosives containing sulphur or sulphurate in admixture with any

chlorate is banned vide notification GSR No. 64(E) dated 27th January, 1992

on the manufacture, possession, use, sale etc. of any explosives. However, an

exception has been made for import in respect of the following:

(a) in small quantities for scientific purposes; (b) for the purpose of manufacturing heads of matches; (c) for use in toy amorces (paper caps for toy pistols); or (d) in percussion caps for use of Railway Fog Signals.

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 19 of 44

34. It is further stated that Chinese origin fire crackers generally contain the

above banned chemicals and are, therefore, prohibited from import. In this

regard, it is stated that approximately 435 tons of Chinese origin fireworks

have already been destroyed by the officials of the Joint Chief Controller of

Explosives, West Circle, Mumbai, but the period of destruction and the

manner of destruction has not been stated.

The Explosives Act and Rules framed thereunder

35. The other perspective relates to licences issued for possession and sale

of fireworks under the Explosives Act, 1884 and Rules framed thereunder and

continuing the ban on the sale of fireworks or limiting the possession and sale

of fireworks. For this purpose, it is necessary to appreciate the scheme of the

Explosives Act and the Rules so that appropriate remedial steps can be taken

in accordance with the provisions of the law.

36. Section 4 of the Explosives Act, 1884 (for short ‘the Act’) contains

various definitions. Section 4(d) defines the word ‘explosive’ and it includes,

amongst others, fireworks. In this context, the classification of explosives is

given in Schedule I to the Explosives Rules, 2008 (for short ‘the Rules’) and

Class 7 thereof relates to fireworks which are categorized into divisions and

classes. This reads as follows:

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 20 of 44

Class 7 – Fireworks Class

“(1) Fireworks Class has four divisions, namely, Division 1, Division 2, Division 3, and Division 4.

(2) Division 1 comprises fireworks composition that is to say, any chemical compound or mechanically mixed preparation of an explosive or inflammable nature, which is used for the purpose of making manufactured firework, and is not an explosive of classes 1,2,3,4,5 & 6, any star and any coloured fire composition:

Provided that a substantially constructed hermetically closed metal case, containing not more than 500 grammes of coloured fire composition of such a nature, as not to be liable to spontaneous ignition shall be deemed to be "a manufactured firework" and not a "firework composition".

(3) Division 2 fireworks comprises manufactured fireworks i.e., to say any explosive of class 1,2,3,4 or 6 and any fireworks composition when such explosive or composition is enclosed in any case or contrivance or other articles specially adapted, for the production of pyrotechnic effect for pyrotechnic signal or sound signals.

(4) Division 2 fireworks comprises 3 sub-divisions, namely, sub- division 1, sub-division 2 and sub-division 3.

(5) Sub-division 1 of Division 2 fireworks comprises low hazard fireworks which, in the opinion of Chief Controller are relatively innocuous in themselves and are not liable to explode violently or all at once, e.g., sparklers [Chinese crackers, serpents, etc.].

(6) Sub-division 2 of Division 2 of fireworks comprises high hazard fireworks which, in the opinion of Chief Controller, present a special hazard to a person, e.g., rockets, shells, maroons, wheels, barrages, fountains, illumination pieces, distress signals, pyrotechnic devices etc.

(7) Sub-division 3 of Division 2 fireworks comprises such fireworks, which are assembled at site purely for the purpose of display.

(8) Division 3 comprises any explosive contrivance required for the manufacture of manufactured fireworks, e.g., quick match fuse, micro cord fuse, etc.

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 21 of 44

(9) Division 4 comprises manufactured fireworks for use of Armed Forces of the Union.”

37. Section 5 of the Act confers the power to make Rules as to licensing of

the manufacture, possession, use, sale, transport, import and export of

explosives. Quite naturally, the Rules framed under the Act also deal with

fireworks.

38. For the present, we are concerned only with certain provisions of the

Rules. Rule 2(19) defines “display fireworks” as a group of authorized

manufactured fireworks assembled at site, solely for the purpose of display.

39. Rule 2(24) defines “fireworks” as low hazard explosive comprising of

any composition or device manufactured with a view to produce coloured fire

or flame, light effect, sound effect, smoke effect (coloured or natural), or

combination of such effects and includes fog-signals, fuses, rockets, shells,

percussion caps.

40. Rule 2(25) defines “fireworks composition” as any chemical compound

or mechanically mixed preparation of an explosive or inflammable substance

that is used for the purpose of making manufactured fireworks and is not

included in any other class of explosives, and includes any star or colored fire

composition.

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 22 of 44

41. Finally, Rule 2(32) defines “manufactured fireworks” as low hazard

explosive contrivance containing explosive or combination of different

classes, namely, Class 1 or Class 2 or Class 3 or Class 4 or Class 6 given in

Part 1 of Schedule I of these rules or any explosives that come under Division

2 or Division 3 or Division 4 under Class 7 given under the said Part.

42. Rule 4 deals with the classifications of explosives and as far as

fireworks are concerned, they are categorized into sound emitting fireworks,

colour or light emitting fireworks, display fireworks and fireworks for export

purposes. We are concerned only with the first three categories of fireworks

and they are explained as follows:

“4. Classification of explosives.—(1) For the purposes of these rules, the explosives shall be classified in the manner specified in Schedule I. The dual system of classification shall be retained for five years from the date of commencement of these Rules, thereafter only UN classification shall be applicable.

(2) If any explosive falls within the limits of more than one class as defined in Schedule I, it shall be deemed to belong exclusively to the last number of such classes.

(3) The fireworks are classified into the following categories depending upon the desired pyrotechnique effect :—

(i) Sound emitting fireworks.—Fireworks with sound level not exceeding 125 dB (AI) or 145 dB (C) pk at 4 meters distance from the point of bursting. For individual fire-cracker constituting the series (joined fire-crackers), the above mentioned limit be reduced by 5 log 10(N) dB, where N = number of crackers joined together;

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 23 of 44

(ii) Colour or light emitting fireworks.—such fireworks which emit colour or light and having sound level not exceeding 90 dB (AI) at 4 m distance from the point of bursting;

(iii) Display Fireworks.— Any product of fireworks assembled at the site for the purpose of display including shell of diameter exceeding 25 mm, multiple shots or cake products of any diameter exceeding 25 nos., of shots in a product and lance network or other products as approved by the Chief Controller.”

43. Rule 9(5) provides that possession of fireworks, not exceeding one

hundred kilogram for own use and not for sale does not require any licence to

be issued, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 7 of the Rules.

44. Rule 15 relates to marking on explosives and packages. As per sub-

Rule (i), (ii) and (iii) thereof, packages of fireworks shall contain the following

markings in a conspicuous indelible character, by means of a stamping,

embossing or painting. The relevant portion of this Rule reads thus:

“15. Marking on explosives and packages.—

(1) Marking on packages. — (i) The outer package shall be marked in conspicuous indelible character, by means of a stamping, embossing or painting with —

(a) the word “EXPLOSIVES”;

(b) the name of authorised explosive;

(c) the number if any of the Class and the Division including sub- division to which it belongs;

(d) the safety distance category of explosive;

(e) the name of the manufacturer;

(f) identification number of the package;

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 24 of 44

(g) the net weight of explosives;

(h) gross weight of the package;

(i) date of manufacture and batch number;

(j) UN Classification and UN Identification number (for export packages);

(k) in case of plastic explosives, the words “marking agent added as per International Civil Aviation Organisation Resolution A 27-8” referred in sub-clause (iv) of clause (c) under sub-rule (2) of rule 10; and

(l) a paper slip containing the above details shall be kept inside the package:

Provided that in the case of safety fuse or fireworks, clauses (a) and (1) may be omitted and the words “safety fuse” or “Fireworks” shall be marked.

(ii) In case of fireworks, the names of the items, for example - amorces, paper caps, serpents eggs, etc., as appropriate shall be marked.

(iii) Every manufacturer shall on the box of each fire cracker shall mention details of its chemical content, sound level and that it satisfies requirements as laid down by the Chief Controller. Fire-cracker meant for export shall have a different colour packing from those intended to be sold in India and a clear print indicating that they are not to be sold in India.”

Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 15 of the Rules is also of some importance and this reads

as follows:

“(4) Marking on fireworks.— In case of fireworks, explosive composition, quantity of such composition, whether sound emitting crackers or colour or light emitting crackers, sound level, a caution or warning indicating the name of the item, manufacturer’s name, method of firing and precautions to be taken both in words and pictorial view shall be printed on each piece of fireworks and cardboard box and where adequate space is not available on the

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 25 of 44

fireworks, such caution or warning shall be printed on a separate label and inserted in the smallest packet or carton.”

45. Chapter VII of the Rules relates to special provisions for possession,

sale and use of explosives. Rule 75 therein provides for a permit to be issued

for temporary possession of manufactured fireworks in excess of the licensed

quantity and this provides that a permit for a period not exceeding thirty days

may be granted by the licensing authority to a licensee for fireworks shop to

possess one-third in excess of the licensed quantity on receipt of the

appropriate fees.

46. Rule 84 of the Rules provides for temporary shops for possession and

sale of fireworks during festivals and this reads:

“84. Temporary shops for possession and sale of fireworks during festivals.—During festivals, the District Magistrate may issue temporary licences for possession and sale of fireworks in a temporary shop subject to the following conditions, namely :—

(1) The fireworks shall be kept in a shed made of non-flammable material, which is closed and secured so as to prevent unauthorised persons having access thereto.

(2) The sheds for possession and sale of fireworks shall be at a distance of at least three metres from each other and fifty metres from any protected work.

(3) The sheds shall not face each other.

(4) No oil burning lamps, gas lamps or naked lights shall be used in the shed or within the safety distance of the sheds. Electrical lights, if used, shall be fixed to the wall or ceiling and shall not be suspended

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 26 of 44

by flexible wire. Switches for each shop shall be fixed rigidly to the wall and a master switch shall be provided for each row of sheds.

(5) Display of fireworks shall not be allowed within fifty metres of any shed.

(6) In one cluster not more than fifty shops shall be permitted.”

47. Chapter VIII of the Rules relates to the grant or refusal of approval, no

objection certificate, licence, certificates, amendment, transfer and renewal of

licences. Rule 99 therein provides that licences and certificates, for a specific

purpose may be granted by the authorities, specified in Part 1 of Schedule IV

of the Rules.

48. Rule 106 provides for the period of validity of the licence granted under

the Rule while Rule 113 provides for documents to be furnished for approval

and grant of a licence and the relevant Form required to be filled up by an

applicant.

49. Schedule IV referred to in Rule 99 of the Rules, particularly Part 1

thereof is required to be read with Rule 113 of the Rules and from a perusal

of items 5 and 6 thereof, the limits for possession and sale of fireworks, the

relevant licensing application form and the licensing authority are indicated.

50. Learned counsel for the applicant informed us through a note that as of

date, in the NCR, PESO has issued 435 permanent licences and in Delhi alone,

PESO has issued 175 permanent licences, thereby making a total of 610

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 27 of 44

permanent licences. It is further stated that the stocks in hand of the fireworks

in the NCR both under permanent and temporary licences is 50,00,000 kg in

the NCR and 1,00,000 kg in Delhi.

What more needs to be done

51. What is necessary now is to correlate air pollution with the sale and

bursting of fireworks in Delhi and the NCR. There is no doubt that the air we

breathe gets polluted with the bursting of fireworks. The extent of air pollution

caused by bursting fireworks is not clear in the absence of empirical data – it

could be severe or it could be marginal, but it is there.

52. Have the steps already taken by the concerned authorities reduced air

pollution during Diwali? It seems to us that the steps so far taken by the

Government of NCT of Delhi are limited to issuing directions, which is

merely paperwork. Only general directions have been given in the past to

schools to sensitize the students and the staff as to the ill-effects and health

hazards of bursting fireworks. No specific plan of action has been laid down

by the Government of NCT of Delhi to make children aware of the hazards of

bursting fireworks and the existing awareness campaigns have been allowed

to drift over the last one year. There is no information on the success or failure

of these campaigns.

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 28 of 44

53. The response of the Government of NCT of Delhi is lethargic with the

absence of any keenness to take proactive steps. This is disconcerting. It is

high time that governmental authorities realize that the cost of ill health

(particularly among children) is far greater in psycho-social terms than in

financial and economic terms. The adage that ‘prevention is better than cure’

is fully applicable in the present circumstances.

54. Similarly, the Delhi Police has issued directions that are difficult to

enforce such as restricting the time during which fireworks can be burst. These

are ad hoc measures that might be workable (if at all) only for the immediate

future. We have not been informed of the impact of such directions or their

implementation.

55. We must note that there has been no response from the States within

the NCR giving the impression that air pollution is not a problem for the State

Governments despite the ill-effects and health hazards of bursting fireworks.

56. There must be a concerted effort by the powers that be to ensure

awareness and sensitization of the people in Delhi and NCR, particularly

children, of the health hazards of indiscriminate use of fireworks. Unless

urgent steps are taken, there could be an adverse impact on the health of

children and this would be to nobody’s benefit but to everybody’s detriment.

Anybody who lived in Delhi during Diwali in 2016 and soon thereafter would

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 29 of 44

have experienced the choking effects of breathing in polluted air and the

tremendous increase in the use and sale of face masks and air purifiers. In the

absence of any concerted plan of action implemented by the governmental

authorities, the residents responded in an ad hoc manner by purchasing face

masks and air purifiers. There is no doubt that an effective and longer lasting

solution is necessary.

57. What has really disturbed us is that the CPCB was directed on 11th

November, 2016 to study and prepare a report within three months on the

harmful effects of the materials used in the manufacture of fireworks. It is

astonishing that the CPCB has not conducted the study and prepared a report

as directed. Apart from the fact that the CPCB has not conducted any study,

even otherwise, no standards have been laid down by the CPCB which could

give any indication of the acceptable and permissible limit of constituent

metals or chemicals used in fireworks and released in the air, beyond which

their presence would be harmful or dangerous. There cannot be any doubt

that the presence of certain metals or chemicals in the air beyond a particular

limit would be inadvisable but that limit is not known to anybody including

the CPCB. Therefore, any discussion on the subject of whether there is an

excessive presence of a particular chemical in the air will not yield any result

unless some authority lays down an acceptable standard of what is excessive

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 30 of 44

and what is not. Dr. Akolkar, Member Secretary of the CPCB had informed

us on 31st July, 2017 that the CPCB would be in a position to lay down the

standards by 15th September, 2017. We do hope the CPCB does so – in any

case as a part of the continuing mandamus principle laid down by this Court,

the matter is required to be followed up.

58. What is also worrying, apart from the absence of standards or limits

having been laid down by the CPCB, is that very little or no attention seems

to have been paid by any of the governmental authorities to the possible health

hazards faced by children due to exposure to chemicals in fireworks. The

governmental authorities need to realize their responsibility regarding the care

and protection of the health of the people in Delhi and NCR and the

importance of launching a sustained campaign to reduce air pollution to

manageable limits during Diwali and the period immediately thereafter. The

health of children should be of foremost concern in this regard. It is, as

submitted, only a matter of a few days of intense pollution but even that is

capable of having long term health effects. There are also short-term adverse

consequences of breathing in polluted air and even this cannot be overlooked

by the governmental authorities, particularly in the case of children.

59. On 31st July, 2017 we had prohibited the use of five chemicals and their

compounds in the manufacture of fireworks. These constituents are antimony,

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 31 of 44

lithium, mercury, arsenic and lead. We had left open the issue of use of

strontium and its compounds in the manufacture of fireworks. During the

course of submissions on the issue of whether the use of strontium should be

permitted in fireworks and the application for modification or vacation of the

interim order, our attention was drawn to an article in the Swarajya magazine,

by one Srikanth Ramakrishnan who reported that the National Environmental

Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) along with researchers from an

organization based in Austria, namely, International Institute for Applied

Systems Analysis (IIAS) had conducted a study whose results revealed that

the majority of the pollution in Delhi comes from outside the NCT of Delhi

and from other areas in the NCR in Uttar Pradesh and Haryana. Therefore,

no matter what air quality standards are adopted in Delhi, pollution would

flow in from the neighbouring States in any case. The report prepared by

NEERI and the IIAS has not been made available to us.

60. Be that as it may, the CPCB has now concluded that only strontium

chromate is harmful or dangerous to human health. Therefore, we have no

option but to prohibit the use of strontium chromate in the manufacture of

fireworks.

61. It was submitted by Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned counsel appearing for

one of the respondents that the best possible solution to the problem of air

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 32 of 44

pollution in Delhi, allegedly due to the bursting of fireworks, would be to

constitute a Committee to advise this Court. It was submitted that when the

issue of noise pollution had surfaced, the CPCB had set up the National

Committee on Noise Pollution and Control in 1997 which led to noise

pollution standards being set. It was suggested that a similar exercise may be

undertaken to deal with the issue of air pollution due to bursting of fireworks

in Delhi. This was precisely the purpose of issuing a direction to the CPCB

on 11th November, 2016 but that was not taken seriously. Therefore, in our

opinion, the suggestion deserves acceptance and it is necessary to set up such

a Committee with the assistance and guidance of the CPCB and the FDRC.

The Committee can quite effectively conduct a study along with assistance

and inputs from other bodies or organizations and make recommendations. It

may be appropriate to appoint a Committee including officers at the

appropriate level from the National Physical Laboratory, Delhi, the Defence

Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences, Timarpur, Delhi, the Indian

Institute of Technology, Kanpur, scientists from the State Pollution Control

Boards, the Fire Development and Research Centre, Sivakasi and Nagpur and

the National Environment Engineering Research Institute (NEERI).

62. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the poor air

quality in November 2016 justified the passing of the interim order on 11th

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 33 of 44

November, 2016 and there was no reason to vary that order. Virulent air

pollution is a cause of concern and the only remedy to stop its ill effects is to

continue the suspension of licences for the sale of fireworks in Delhi and in

the NCR. It was submitted that if there is any doubt regarding the effect of

bursting fireworks on air pollution, and in the absence of any standards to

measure the same, the safer course would be to continue such suspension

rather than risk the health of large sections of people in Delhi and the NCR,

particularly children.

63. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in

Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India4 it was held by

this Court that the right to health, though of a worker, is a fundamental right.

We see no real difference between the fundamental right to health of a worker

and the human right to health of any other citizen of the country, particularly

children who perhaps need more care and attention. It was held in paragraph

24 of the Report:

“The right to health to a worker is an integral facet of meaningful right to life, to have not only a meaningful existence but also robust health and vigour without which worker would lead life of misery. Lack of health denudes him of his livelihood. Compelling economic necessity to work in an industry exposed to health hazards due to indigence to bread-winning for himself and his dependants, should not be at the cost of the health and vigour of the workman. Facilities and opportunities, as enjoined in Article 38, should be provided to protect

4 (1995) 3 SCC 42

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 34 of 44

the health of the workman. Provision for medical test and treatment invigorates the health of the worker for higher production or efficient service. Continued treatment, while in service or after retirement is a moral, legal and constitutional concomitant duty of the employer and the State. Therefore, it must be held that the right to health and medical care is a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Articles 39(e), 41 and 43 of the Constitution and make the life of the workman meaningful and purposeful with dignity of person. Right to life includes protection of the health and strength of the worker and is a minimum requirement to enable a person to live with human dignity.”

64. A similar view was expressed in Occupational Health & Safety Assn.

v. Union of India5 when it was held in paragraph 10 of the Report:

“Right to health i.e. right to live in a clean, hygienic and safe environment is a right flowing from Article 21. Clean surroundings lead to healthy body and healthy mind. But, unfortunately, for eking out a livelihood and for national interest, many employees work in dangerous, risky and unhygienic environment. Right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath from the directive principles of State policy, particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Articles 39, 41 and 42. Those articles include protection of health and strength of workers and just and humane conditions of work. Those are minimum requirements which must exist to enable a person to live with human dignity. Every State has an obligation and duty to provide at least the minimum condition ensuring human dignity.”

65. Under the circumstances, there can be no doubt that the residents of the

NCT of Delhi and indeed the entire NCR are entitled to breathe unpolluted

air. They are entitled to the protection of their health from the adverse

consequences of breathing in air polluted by the bursting of fireworks.

5 (2014) 3 SCC 547

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 35 of 44

66. The right to breathe clean air is a recognized right under our

Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to

paragraphs 16 and 17 of Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India6

which read as follows:

“The constitutional and statutory provisions protect a person’s right to fresh air, clean water and pollution-free environment, but the source of the right is the inalienable common law right of clean environment. It would be useful to quote a paragraph from Blackstone’s commentaries on the Laws of England (Commentaries on the Laws of England of Sir William Blackstone) Vol. III, fourth edition published in 1876. Chapter XIII, “Of Nuisance” depicts the law on the subject in the following words:

“Also, if a person keeps his hogs, or other noisome animals, or allows filth to accumulate on his premises, so near the house of another, that the stench incommodes him and makes the air unwholesome, this is an injurious nuisance, as it tends to deprive him of the use and benefit of his house. A like injury is, if one’s neighbour sets up and exercises any offensive trade; as a tanner’s, a tallow-chandler’s, or the like; for though these are lawful and necessary trades, yet they should be exercised in remote places; for the rule is, ‘sic utere tuo, ut alienum non leadas’; this therefore is an actionable nuisance. And on a similar principle a constant ringing of bells in one’s immediate neighbourhood may be a nuisance. … With regard to other corporeal hereditaments; it is a nuisance to stop or divert water that used to run to another’s meadow or mill; to corrupt or poison a watercourse, by erecting a dye-house or a lime-pit, for the use of trade, in the upper part of the stream; to pollute a pond, from which another is entitled to water his cattle; to obstruct a drain; or in short to do any act in common property, that in its consequences must necessarily tend to the prejudice of one’s neighbour. So closely does the law of England enforce that excellent rule of gospel-morality, of ‘doing to others, as we would they should do unto ourselves’.”

6 (1996) 5 SCC 647

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 36 of 44

Our legal system having been founded on the British common law the right of a person to a pollution-free environment is a part of the basic jurisprudence of the land.”

67. The right to health coupled with the right to breathe clean air leaves no

manner of doubt that it is important that air pollution deserves 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 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

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 37 of 44

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

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 38 of 44

regulate the availability and sale of fireworks in Delhi and the NCR.

Directions

71. As mentioned above, the health of the people in Delhi and in the NCR

must take precedence over any commercial or other interest of the applicant

or any of the permanent licensees and, therefore, a 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 Works

(Pucca Shop) Association7 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

7 SLP (C) No. 17327-28/1993 decided on 1st November, 1993

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 39 of 44

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

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 40 of 44

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

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

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 41 of 44

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

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 42 of 44

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.

(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

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 43 of 44

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

IA No. 52448/2017 in WP (C) No.728/2015 Page 44 of 44

Government and other authorities should consider encouraging display

fireworks through community participation rather than individual

bursting of fireworks.

72. With the above directions, I.A. No. 52448 of 2017 is disposed of.

……………………………J

(Madan B. Lokur)

……………………………..J (Deepak Gupta)

New Delhi; September 12, 2017

ARJUN GOPAL Vs UNION OF INDIA .

ARJUN GOPAL Vs UNION OF INDIA .

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13

Page 14

Page 15

Page 16

Page 17

Page 18

Page 19

Page 20

Page 21

Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

Page 25

Page 26

Page 27

Page 28

Page 29

Page 30

Page 31

Page 32

Page 33

Page 34

Page 35

Page 36

Page 37

Page 38

Page 39

Page 40

Page 41

Page 42

Page 43

Page 44