On cracker ban, SC says mustn't pass orders difficult to enforce

NEW DELHI: Aware of the flagrant violation of its past Diwali cracker ban order which had specified time windows for bursting green crackers, Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider strict control over bursting of crackers and said the court must not pass orders which are difficult to implement on the ground. "We have to be extremely careful in passing an order, which must be manageable and enforceable," a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said. This came in response to amicus curiae and senior advocate Aparajita Singh's plea that there could not be carte blanche for cracker bursting which, apart from causing serious pollution, adversely impacted the health of children, senior citizens and patients. The bench said, "The best way is to make people wiser, awaken them about harmful crackers and motivate them to exercise self-restraint while persuading them to return to the original tradition of lighting lamps. But sale of harmful crackers must be stopped." When the amicus said worship was part of religion and not firecrackers, and that gods would be aghast if they found that children were being harmed because of cracker bursting in their name, the bench responded, "We will not hurt religious sentiments. But at the same time, we are for the creation of an appropriate atmosphere through education and persuasion to enable people to exercise self-restraint." Additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati said the regime of green crackers was already the SC's mandate. The blanket ban on cracker bursting was modified last year allowing sale of green crackers for two days and bursting for another two-day window. When the amicus focused on adverse impacts of cracker bursting, SC said, "The moment we pass a restricting order, people will take it as coercive action and react differently. We must be very practical and pragmatic in such issues. There is sufficient time for the govt to disseminate information about harmful effects of crackers and persuade them to limit it to bare minimum." Justice Bagchi said the primary concerns were health and pollution. "What will be the pollution load if people burst crackers in a short period of time?" he asked. The amicus suggested that the issue should be referred to the Commission on Air Quality Management (CAQM), which could examine the issue with the help of experts and give its suggestions to the court for passing appropriate orders.

Join conversation

Share your thoughts in the comments

Be respectful · TOI community guidelines

Cracker manufacturers represented by senior advocate K Parameshwar and Sai Deepak said CAQM's report could be sought on the issue. Amicus said the right to religion and right to health needed balancing as petitioners argued the right to religion every time. The court also touched upon issue of stubble burning, which has engaged the SC's attention for the last few years, and said stubble converted into bales had become commercially viable and required state support to enable farmers to shift from stubble burning.

End of Article