# l 1 S.C.R. 821 ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2017] 11 S.C.R. 821
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2017-09-12
- **Bench:** Madan B. Lokur, Deepak Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/l-1-s-c-r-821-arjun-gopal-and-ors-v-union-of-india-and-ors-31616
- **Pages:** 36

## Headnote

Constitution of India - Art. 32 - Public interest litigation -
Wi·it petition seeking ban on use of fireworks, sparklers and minor
explosives in any form, during festivals or otherwise - Interim order
passqd on 11.11.2016 directing suspension of all such licences
permitting sale ofjireworks, wholesale and retail within the territo1:v
A
B
c
of the National Capital Region - Manufacturers and suppliers of D
fireworks seeking modification of the interim order - Held:
Continuing the suspension of licences might be too radical a step
to take for the present - A graded and balanced approach is
necessary that would 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 firework.1· in Delhi and the NCR - Graded and
balanced approach is not intended to dilute the primary concern
which is and remains the health of everybody and the human right
E
F
to breathe good quality air - Health must take precedence over the
commercial or other interest of the applicant and those granted a
permanent I icence lo possess and sell fireworks - Thus, a graded
regulation is necessary which would eventually result in a
prohibition - F11rthe1: it cannot be said with any great degree of
certain(v that the extremely poor quality of air in Delhi in November
and December 2016 was the result only of bursting.fireworks around G
Diwali, certainly, there were other causes as well - As a result, a
complete ban 011 the sale of fireworks would be an extreme step that
might not be fi11/y warranted on the facts available - Also, large
number of temporary licences have been issued for possession and
sale of fireworks - Thus, there is some justification for modifying H
821
822
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] ll S.C.R.
A
the interim order and lijling the suspension of the permanent
licences - Jn v1ell' thereof; <lirec:tions issued H'/tereb.v suspension oj
permanent licenses by order dated 11.11.2017, lilied temporarily -
Pollution - Air pollution.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
Disposing of the interim application, the Conrt
HELD: 1.1 There can be no doubt that the residents of the
NCT of Delhi 11nd indeed the entire NCR arc entitled to breathe
unpolluted air, They arc entitled to the protection of their health
from the advctsc consequences of breathing in air polluted by
the bursting of fireworks, The right to breathe clean air is a
recognized right under the Constitution. [Paras 65. 66] [851-CJ
l.2 The right to health coupled with the right to breathe
clean air leaves no manner of doubt that ii 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. [Para 67) [852D)
l.3 Continuing the suspension of licences might be too
radical a step to take for the present-a graded and balanced
approach is necessary that would 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
the 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. [Para 68) [852-G-H; 853-A-B]
1.4 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 fir

## Text

_Characters 0–39,996 of 79,854. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39996 for what follows._

[2017] l 1 S.C.R. 821
ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(I.A. No. 52448 of 2017)
In
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 728 of2015)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Constitution of India - Art. 32 - Public interest litigation -
Wi·it petition seeking ban on use of fireworks, sparklers and minor
explosives in any form, during festivals or otherwise - Interim order
passqd on 11.11.2016 directing suspension of all such licences
permitting sale ofjireworks, wholesale and retail within the territo1:v
A
B
c
of the National Capital Region - Manufacturers and suppliers of D
fireworks seeking modification of the interim order - Held:
Continuing the suspension of licences might be too radical a step
to take for the present - A graded and balanced approach is
necessary that would 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 firework.1· in Delhi and the NCR - Graded and
balanced approach is not intended to dilute the primary concern
which is and remains the health of everybody and the human right
E
F
to breathe good quality air - Health must take precedence over the
commercial or other interest of the applicant and those granted a
permanent I icence lo possess and sell fireworks - Thus, a graded
regulation is necessary which would eventually result in a
prohibition - F11rthe1: it cannot be said with any great degree of
certain(v that the extremely poor quality of air in Delhi in November
and December 2016 was the result only of bursting.fireworks around G
Diwali, certainly, there were other causes as well - As a result, a
complete ban 011 the sale of fireworks would be an extreme step that
might not be fi11/y warranted on the facts available - Also, large
number of temporary licences have been issued for possession and
sale of fireworks - Thus, there is some justification for modifying H
821
822
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] ll S.C.R.
A
the interim order and lijling the suspension of the permanent
licences - Jn v1ell' thereof; <lirec:tions issued H'/tereb.v suspension oj
permanent licenses by order dated 11.11.2017, lilied temporarily -
Pollution - Air pollution.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
Disposing of the interim application, the Conrt
HELD: 1.1 There can be no doubt that the residents of the
NCT of Delhi 11nd indeed the entire NCR arc entitled to breathe
unpolluted air, They arc entitled to the protection of their health
from the advctsc consequences of breathing in air polluted by
the bursting of fireworks, The right to breathe clean air is a
recognized right under the Constitution. [Paras 65. 66] [851-CJ
l.2 The right to health coupled with the right to breathe
clean air leaves no manner of doubt that ii 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. [Para 67) [852D)
l.3 Continuing the suspension of licences might be too
radical a step to take for the present-a graded and balanced
approach is necessary that would 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
the 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. [Para 68) [852-G-H; 853-A-B]
1.4 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
ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
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. There is, therefore, some
justification for modifying the interim order passed on 11th
November, 2016 and lifting the suspension of the permanent
licences. [Para 69) [852-H; 853-A-B)
1.5 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 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. There arc no figures with regard to the NCR, but it is
assumed that like in Delhi, a large number of temporary licences
ha~·e been issued for the possession and sale of fireworks. Thus,
there is a need to regulate the availability and sale of fireworks
in Ddh.i and the NCR. [Pura 70] [853-B-D)
1.6 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
gruded regulation is necessary which would eventually result in
a prohibition. [Para 71) [853-E]
2. Taking all factors into consideration, the following orders
and directions arc issued:
(I) The directions issued by this Court in Sadar Bazar Fire Works
(P11cca Shop) A.vsociatio11 case shall stand partially modified to
the extent that they arc not in conformity with the Explosives
Rules which shall be implemented in full by the concerned
authorities. Safety from fire hazards is one of the concerns in this
regard.
(2) Specifically, Ruic 15 relating to marking on explosives and
packages and Ruic 84 relating to temporary shops for possession
823
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
and sale of fireworks during festivals of the Explosives Rules H
824
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] ll S.C.R.
A
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.
B
(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
would ensure that fireworks arc not burst in silence zones that
c is, an area at l~ast 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 zon~ by the concerned authorities.
(5) The Delhi Police is directed to reduce the grant of temporary
D
licences by about 50% of the number of licences granted in 2016.
E
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
lhe authorities to decide.
(6) The Unioll of India would ensure strict compliance with the
Nolilication 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 rqvise this notification in view of the passage of time
and further knowledge gained over the last 25 years and issue a
F
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
G
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.
H
(8) The Government of NCT of Delhi and other States in the
ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
825
NCR may consider interacting with established medical A
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.
B
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. U is the c
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
D
enforcement authorities would ensure that there is no further
entry of fireworks into Delhi and the NCR till further orders.
Even 50,00,000 kg of fireworks is far more than enough for
Dusschra und 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
E
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
F
of fireworks by the permanent licensees must conform to the
directions given above and must be fully in compliance with tbc
Explosives Rules. 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 G
already granted, these licensees are put on notice for Dnssebra
and Diwali in 2018 that they would· be permitted to possess and
sell only 50% of the quantity permitted in 2017 and that this would
substantially reduce over the next couple of years. The permanent
licensees arc at liberty to file objections to this proposed direction
H
826
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017] 11 S.C.R.
within 30 days from today and thereafter the objections if any
would be heard and decided. If no objections are filed, this
direction would 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 Schcijulc VII of the Environment (Protection) Rules,
1986 docs deal with several metals, but as it is seen that there
arc 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 that it
will complete the exercise by 15th September, 2017 but keeping
in mind its tra~k record subsequent to the order dated 11th
November, 2016 this docs not seem possible. Therefore, time is
granted 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. A Committee is appointed to be chaired
by the Chairperson of the CPCB and consisting of officers at the
appro11riate 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 Pollntion 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 31" 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 consider
encouraging display fireworks through community participation
rather than individual bursting of fireworks. JPara 71] [853-E-II;
854-A-H; 855-A-H; 856-A-G)
ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Arjun Gopal v. Union of India (2017) 1 SCC 412; Noise
Pollution (11 in Re. (2005) 5 SCC 733 : [2005] 1 Suppl.
SCR 624; Sadar Bazar Fire Works (Pucca Shop)
Association v. Pankaj Traders & Ors. SLP (C) Nos.
17327-28/1993; Consumer Education & Research
Centre v. Union of India (1995) 3 SCC 42 : (1995] 1
SCR 626; Occupational Health & Safety Assn. v. Union
of India (2014) 3 SCC 547 : [2014] 4 SCR 10; Ve/lore
Citizens. Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC
647 : [1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 241 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
c2011) 1 sec 412
referred to
Para3
[i005] 1 Suppl. SCR 624
referred to
Para 20
(1995] 1 SCR 626
referred to
Para 63
[2014] 4 SCR 10
referred to
Para 64
[1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 241
referred to
Para 66
CNIL 0Rl!JINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 728
of2015
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
827
A
B
c
D
Gopal Sankaranarayan, Ms. Pooja Dhar, Zeeshan Diwan, Advs.
E
for the Petitioners
F
Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, Anil Grover, AAG, A.K. Sinha,
C.A. Sundaram, P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advs., Ajay Shanna, S.W.A. Qadri,
D.N. Gobardhan,Amit Sharma, Saeed Qailri, GS. Makker, B. Krishna
Prasad, R.K. Rathorc, Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Ritesh Kumar, Ms.Binu
Tamta, Ms. Vimla Sinha, B.V. Bairam Das, Ms. Rohini Musa, Sachin
Mittal, Sagar Kothari, Ms. Mansi Bhatia,Ms.Prachi Goel, Raj iv Rekhani,
Yogender Handoo, Ms. Charu Wali Khanna, Chirag M. Shroff,
Dharmcndra Singh Pal, Ms. Sarla Chandra, Mrs. V.D. Khanna,
M.A. Chinnasamy, Ms. C. Rubavathi, P. Raja Ram, V. Senthil Kumar,
Mis Corporate Law Group, Anish R. Shah, Vijay Panjwani, Dcbojit
G
Borkakati, M. Balashivudu, Piyush Hans, Satish Kumar, Sanjay Kumar
Viscn, Govind Narayan Kaushik, Dr. Kailash Chand, Rajiv Jain (inpcrson) for the Respondents
H
828
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 11 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MADAN B. LO KUR, J. I. A large number of disparate prayers·
have been made in this public interest litigation initiated by the petitioners
under Article32 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 fostivals 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 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 jnterim stage by this Cow'\ and a detailed order passed
on 11 '"November, 2016.' The manufacturers and suppliers of fireworks
primarily based in Sivakasi (Tamil Nadu) moved an application on or
about 5'" July, 2017 for modification of that interim order. The modification
application is registered as I.A. No. 52448 of2017 and we now propose
to decide that application.
4. The background for the interim order passed on 11" November,
2016 is that Diwali was celebrated in 2016 on 30'' October. On the next
day, it was discovered that PM,,, levels in the air had crossed 700 μg/m 3
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 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
G
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 Vil of the Environment
H
I Arjun Gopal V. Union oflndia, (2017) I sec 412
ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
829
(MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
(Protection) Rules, 1986. Broadly stated the presence of PM,_, should
A
range between 40 and 60 μg/m 3 and the presence of PM10 should range
between 60 and I 00 μg/m 3 • 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:
AOI Range
Category
0-50
Good
51-100
Satisfactory
101-200
Moderatelv polluted
201-300
Poor
301-400
Verv voor
401-500
Severe
In Delhi, during November 2016 the A QI was way above 500 on several
days and had even crossed 700 the day after Diwali. The standards laid
down in Schedule VII of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 are
B
c
as follows:
D
SCHEDULE VII
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
S. No. Pollutant
Time
Concentration in Ambient Air
weighted
Avera Pl':
E
Industrial,
Ecologically
Methods of
Residential, Sensitive
measurement
Rural and
Acea (notified
Other Arca
by Central
Government)
(Ii
<2)
(3)
(4)
<5)
(6).
I.
Sulphur
Annual"'
50
20
- Improved West
Dioxide
and Gacke
F
(502),
24hours••
80
80
- Ultraviolet
μg!m'
fluorescence
2.
Nitrogen
Annual*
40
30
- Modified Jacob
Dioxide
& Hochhciscr
(NO,),
24 hours••
80
80
(N a-Arscnitc)
μg!m'
- Chcmilun1incsc
G
cncc
3.
Particulate
Annual•
60
60
- Gravimetric
Matter
- TOEM
(size less
24 .!tours••
100 .
100
- Bctaattcnuation
than I Oμm)
or PM ru
Ul!/m3
H
830
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(20 l 7] l l S.C.R.
A
I
4.
Particulate
Annual•
40
40
- Grdvi1netrtc
I
Matter
- TOEM
I
(size less:
24 hours••
60
60
- Beta
than
attenuation
2.Sμm) or
I
PM25
!
'""m'
5.
(},one (03)
8 hours•• I
I 00
!00
- UV photo1nctric
μfl'm'
;
-
Clle1nilwnine.sL~
I hour** i
180
180
encc
B
I
- (1lc1nical
I
Method
Lead (Pb)
Annual*
0.50
0.50
- AAS/ICP
6.
μg/1n3
tndhod aner
24 hours••
1.0
1.0
satnpling on
c
EPM 2000 or
equivalent liltcr
paper
- ED-XRF using
Tcllon filter
7.
Carbon
8 hours•*
02
02
- Non Dispersive.
Moooxide
Infra Rod
D
(CO)
1 hour••
04
04
(NDIR)
mi;'m3
S~Ctl'OSL'O~~
8.
A1n1nonia
Annual*
I 00
100
- Ou:1.nihunincsc
(NH3)
cncc
μg/in3
24 hours••
400
400
- lndopheaol blue
E
1ncthod
9.
Benzene
Annual*
05
05
- Gas
(C•fJ;'
chromatography
~·wm
basc-d
1.:ontinuous
analyzer
- Adsorption and
F
Desol]ltion
fullowed by GC
analvsis
10.
Benzo(a)
Annual*
I) 1
01
- Solvent
Pyrene
t..'Xtraction
(BaP)-
fullowedby
particulate
HPLC/GC
phase only,
analys~
""'m'
G
II.
Am..."'11iC
Annual*
06
06
- AAS/ICP
(A•), μgim3
method after
sampling on
EPM 2000or
equivalent filter
H
""~r
ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
831
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
I
12.
Nickel
Annual*
20
20
• AAS/ICP
(Ni). μg/nl3
method after
san1pling on
I
EPM 2000 or
equivalent filter
naner
A
*Annual arithmetic mean of minimum 104 measurements in a year at a B
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.
c
6. In the backdrop of these staggeringly high PM,, levels and
D
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 11 '"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.
E
7. The directions given by this Court have been implemented and
F
arc 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
0
the report.
Application for modification of the Interim order
8. Feeling aggrieved by the continuance of the interim order passed
on 11" November, 2016 the concerned manufacturer and supplier of
fireworks moved I.A. No.52448 of 2017 for modification/vacation of H
832
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] I I S.C.R.
A
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 82 l fireworks industries situated in and around
Sivakasi and they produce and supply fireworks and sparklers all over
B
the country for festivals such as Diwali, Dusschra, 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 arc
employed in ancillary and subsidiary industries connected with the
production and supply of fireworks.
c
I 0. According to the applicant the National Green Tribunal {NGT)
rendered a decision on IO" November, 2016 in Original Application No.21
of 2014 and other >onnected matters in which it is recorded that there
are seven major contributors of air pollution in the NCR and these arc:
l. Construction activity and carriage of construction material.
D
2. Burning of Municipal Solid Waste and other waste.
E
F
G
H
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 imd Stone Crushers.
In other words, the submission of the applicant was that fireworks arc
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 Environment of the Government ofNCT of Delhi
and the Delhi Pollution Control Committee. The study conducted by IlTK suggests that the sources of PM,,, are several but the bursting of
ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
833
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
fireworks is not one of them. We have not been informed whether any
A
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 pa1ticularly in the
winter months. It was also submitted that there are certain other
B
geographical and meteorological conditions such as temperature, wind
rlirection 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 c
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 2'~
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
D
made to a report in the New York Times by Gceta Anand on 2""
November, 2016 that an estimated 32 million tons ofleftover straw from
rice harvests were burnt in Punjab and Haryana, in spite 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, Kamataka 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 (ifat 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
E
F
that cannot by itsclfrcsult in a substantial deterioration in air quality all
G
over the country including Delhi. The bw'Sting of fireworks around Diwali
w.ould have only a temporary and transitory impact and not any long
lasting effect. Therefore, the bursting of fireworks around Diwali does
not explain high PM,,, levels in Delhi more than even a month after
Diwali.
H
834
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 11 S.C.R.
15. During the course of submissions it was pointed out that the
Dahi Pdlution Contrd Committee ha:! issued adirectionon 8'h November,
2016 under the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, I 981 banning the bursting of fireworks at all times except on religious
occasions. It wqs submitted that this ban is still in force and therefore it
cannot be said that the terrible quality ofair in Delhi in November 20 I 6
and thereafter is attributable only to bursting of fireworks - there are
several other fa~tors. 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 ifnot 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 disptlte on this aspect. With this agreement in mind (which
has always been there), we had passed an order on 3 I" 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 <md
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 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
ofDiwali.
0
18. The Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO)
H
had laid the foundation stone of the Fireworks Development Research
Centre (FDRC) on 28'' 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:
ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
835
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
l. Research & Development of eco friendly fireworks.
A
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.
B
c
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) Atom Bomb, (b) Chinese crackers (no reference to
China at all), (c) Maroons and (d) Garland crackers. This study and
D
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
l S'h July, 2005 in Noise Pollutio11 (VJ, iii Re.' to the following effect:
(i) Firecrackers
E
"174. 1. On a comparison of the two systems i.e. the present . F
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.
0
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
1 (200SJ s sec 733
H
836
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017] ll S.C.R.
A
firccrack~rs. DOE shall specify the proportion/composition as
well as the maximum permissible weight of every chemical used
in manufacturing firecrackers.
3. The Dqpartment of Explosives may divide the firecrackers
into two categories - (i) sound-emitting firecrackers, and (ii)
13
colour/liglit-emitting firecrackers.
c
D
E
F
G
H
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. Firecraqkcrs for the purpose of export may be manufactured
bearing higher noise levels subjcctto the following conditions: (1)
the manufacturer should be permitted to do so only when he has
an export order with him and not othe1wise; (ii) the noise levels
for these firecrackers should conform to the noise standards
prescribed in the country to which they are intended to be exp01ted
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 16'" 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.
ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
837
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
We also direct the Teachers/ Lecturers/ Assistant Professors/
A
Professors of the Schools and Colleges to educate the students
about the ill effects of the fireworks."
In other words, directions have been issued by this Court from time to
time to prevent air pollution around the time ofDiwali and to make people
aware of the health hazards of bursting fireworks.
B
22. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Government of
N"CT of Delhi on 26~ August 2017 in which it is stated that school children
are being info1med about the hazards and ill-effects of indiscriminate
bursting of fireworks by encouraging participation of schools in 'antifire crackers' campaigns. Through these campaigns, participation ofall c
stakeholders and eco-clubs is expected and schools arc 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
D
fot 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
measw·es to celebrate Diwali. It is stated that since 20 l 0, circulars
have been issued by the Directorate to spread the message of"Say No
to Crackers".
E
24. Finally, it is stated that on 24'" August, 2017 the Directorate of
Edncation has issued a circular to all heads of schools falling under the
Directorate ofEducation 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 on28'"August2017, in which it isstatedthattemporary
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 sfated 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.
F
G
H
838
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017] l l S.C.R.
26. It is stated on behalf of the Commissioner of Police in Delhi
that the maximum quantity of fireworks permissible is I 00 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 I of Schedule I of the Explosives Rules in
respect of the firfworks 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 (Pu~ca Shop) Association v. Panktlj Traders & Ors. 3
The order passed in this case on I'' November. 199 3 reads as follows :
"It appears that after this Court's order of 22"" October. 1993,
the authorities have issued a circular dated 26. I 0.93 imposing
ce1tain 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 arc 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 adja~ent 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 arc disposed of."
G
28. It is fmther 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 Comt on 11" November. 2016 (the·
corresponding figure for the NCR minus Delhi has not been given to
us).
H
'SLP(C)Nos.17327-28/1993
ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
29. With regard to the grant of temporary licences, it is stated that
in 2016 a total of I 073 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 I 0.00 pm and 06.00 am and a prohibition on the bursting of
fireworks in silence zones, that is an area not less than I 00 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
29'" 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 arc 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:
a. Constituents those mentioned in the specifications of PESO
(year 2008) may only be permitted (Aluminium, Sulphur,
Potassium and Barium).
b.