The Supreme Court weighed firecracker restrictions in Delhi-NCR against religious sentiments and health concerns. It signalled that awareness, safer alternatives and enforceable rules may work better than blanket curbs.
Image used for representational purposes only
Newdelhi,Oct 12, 2026 17:12 IST
The Supreme Court on Monday said there was a need to balance religious sentiments with public health concerns while considering restrictions on firecrackers in Delhi-NCR. Hearing a suo motu matter on air pollution in the National Capital Region, the court said people should voluntarily shift to less polluting ways of celebrating festivals instead of depending only on restrictive judicial orders.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said it was not inclined to hurt religious sentiments, but stressed that citizens must be made aware of the harmful effects of firecrackers and encouraged to adopt safer practices. The hearing also covered stubble burning and solid waste management, with the court discussing practical steps to deal with pollution ahead of the coming season.
"We will not hurt religious sentiments but at the same time, people should themselves come forward and opt for it. The whole exercise should involve a balancing approach," the CJI said. He added that awareness among citizens and civil society would be the most effective way forward. During the hearing, Justice Bagchi questioned the religious basis for bursting firecrackers, asking, "What is religious about bursting crackers?"
Senior advocate Aparajita Singh, assisting the bench as amicus curiae, referred to the health risks of air pollution, especially for children, elderly people and those with health vulnerabilities. Responding to arguments linking firecrackers with religious practices, she said, "Gods would be aghast if they knew that children were suffering and getting sick in their name." She also pointed to repeated enforcement failures, saying restrictions on the duration of firecracker use were unlikely to work without proper implementation.
"It sounds really nice in court, that it is only two hours or one hour. But the court also knows that it is not implemented. It is impossible for police officers to be on every street all the time," the amicus said. She suggested that the issue be referred to the Commission for Air Quality Management so it could examine the available material and consider the medical concerns. The bench, however, said it had to be careful before passing directions that would be difficult to enforce. "We have to be extremely careful in passing an order unless we are in a position to make it manageable and enforceable," the CJI said, adding that restrictive directions were often seen by people as coercive action.
Emphasising a practical approach, the CJI said there was still enough time to appeal to people to celebrate festivals in their preferred manner while keeping firecracker use within specified hours, as had been done earlier. The court also discussed promoting less polluting alternatives and curbing the sale of highly polluting firecrackers. "We have to make people wiser, bring awareness and tell them which firecrackers are harmful and which are less harmful," the CJI said. He suggested encouraging traditional practices such as lighting lamps and using sparklers, while restricting the availability of more harmful varieties. The bench also considered publishing awareness material to urge people to minimise firecracker use and follow specified timings to reduce air and noise pollution. It indicated that suggestions could be placed before the CAQM for consideration.
On stubble burning, Justice Bagchi referred to proposals by states to buy crop residue and explore its commercial use. The CJI said crop residue had acquired commercial value and could financially benefit farmers, stressing the need to develop a market for it. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati told the bench that a policy framework was in place for both in-situ and ex-situ management of crop residue, and said the Centre would file a detailed affidavit on the steps taken. The amicus said the government had introduced various schemes and financial incentives to tackle stubble burning. The law officer later said an updated status report would be placed before the court on measures already implemented, preventive steps taken and plans to combat air pollution. The matter will next be heard on October 15.
- Ends