The Supreme Court of India has suggested that authorities enlist the support of influential public figures, including renowned cricketer Virat Kohli, to lead a mass awareness campaign advocating for a firecracker-free Diwali. The proposal was put forward by a bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale, as they reviewed ongoing petitions concerning firecracker-related pollution and the efficacy of current regulatory frameworks.
During the hearing, the court noted that despite repeated annual directives intended to control air pollution, the measures appeared to have had limited impact, with firecracker violations continuing unabated. Justice Varale questioned why the government does not leverage the influence of highly respected individuals, such as prominent sportspersons, to communicate the significance of celebrating the festival without pyrotechnics. Justice Sundresh suggested that authorities could request figures like Kohli to record segments emphasizing the spirit of Diwali as a traditional festival of lights, rather than one defined by fireworks.
The bench observed that fireworks were not originally an integral part of the traditional Diwali celebration, noting that the association with explosives developed significantly over later centuries. The court’s focus on alternative awareness strategies coincides with its broader examination of firecracker regulations, including the specific issue of permissible barium content, which the court stated would be deliberated further following the festive season.
The discussion in court also highlighted the concerns raised by petitioners, who argued for a complete nationwide ban on firecracker manufacturing. Petitioner Gopal Sankaranarayanan contended that the current pollution levels pose a direct threat to the right to life and raised alarms regarding the use of child labour and the violation of storage safety norms. Amicus curiae Aparajita Singh presented arguments emphasizing the severe health consequences of firecracker emissions, noting that toxic gases and hazardous particulate matter, specifically PM2.5, can enter the human bloodstream and negatively impact vital organs, especially among children and non-smokers.
A point of contention remains the validity of "green crackers," which Singh argued are often misleadingly labelled. She noted that even these authorized variants emit pollution, albeit at lower levels than conventional products, and urged the court to maintain bans until a more robust, verifiable regulatory framework is established. Conversely, legal counsel for firecracker manufacturers, J. Sai Deepak, argued against a blanket ban. He asserted that such measures often drive the trade into the black market, leading to an increase in the smuggling of illegal and unregulated products.
Deepak further argued that the current industry is regulated under the Explosives Act and that the government should focus on penalizing specific manufacturers who violate licensing or QR-code requirements rather than penalizing the entire sector. He maintained that compliant manufacturers should not be held responsible for the illegal activities of others, cautioning that a total prohibition would not eliminate the use of fireworks but rather encourage the distribution of more hazardous, smuggled goods.
The bench also directed scrutiny toward the Delhi government and the Commission for Air Quality Management regarding their pollution-control preparedness. The court questioned why only nine of the 39 air monitoring stations in the capital were operational. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati responded that the administration has implemented several measures, including the deployment of over 600 anti-smog guns, adjustments to government office timings to mitigate traffic congestion, and the enforcement of BS-VI emission standards for vehicles entering the city starting November 1. While the government claimed improved readiness compared to previous years, it acknowledged that air quality index levels tend to spike when firecrackers are used.
Comments