The Supreme Court, while hearing a matter related to air pollution in the Delhi-NCR region, said public awareness and voluntary participation through a balanced, optional approach is more effective than total bans which face practical implementation hurdles on the ground.

Last year, in October 2025, the Supreme Court had allowed the sale and bursting of green firecrackers in Delhi-NCR for the festival of Diwali. The Court has allowed the joint request of the Central Government and the Delhi Government by relaxing the ban on green firecrackers.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a matter pertaining to the issue of air pollution in the Delhi- NCR Region, previously known as MC Mehta v. Union of India.

Chief Justice Kant remarked, "We will not hurt the religious sentiments, but at the same time, we'll create a welcoming preference that people themselves come forward and opt for the—because this more the optional exercise will be a balancing approach, and it will prove permanency also to this system, that instead of before, the society itself becomes awakened, and people come forward. See, if the citizenry is strengthened, the civil society is aware of conscience of these things, I think that will be the best...I think the, administration and that availability of crackers in the market, if green crackers only are made available, maybe that's one way of dealing with these things."


Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh was Amicus in the matter; Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak appeared for the Federation of Firework Traders, Senior Advocate K Parmeshwar appeared for an Applicant, and ASG Aishwarya Singh Bhati appeared for the Union

Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak informed the court that a similar matter pertaining to the firecrackers is pending before another bench of the Supreme Court in Arjun Gopal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. He also submitted that he is representing the Federation of Firework Traders. "There is a ban that is going on pursuant to Arjun Gopal, and therefore we are forced to participate there as well as here", he said. 

"The clarity is that the Supreme Court said that there should not be any firecrackers. The people were bursting only during daytime. Only to tell us that you dare to take any action...we have to be extremely careful in passing an order, unless we are in a position to make it manageable and enforceable...best way out is to make people wiser, to bring awakening, to tell them which ones are harmful...to promote that kind of, I think, a culture, and persuade people to return to our original culture where only lighting of lamp/diya was there", Chief Justice said. 

The Bench suggested the publication of some literature or reading material regarding harmful results of firecrackers.

"You can make an earnest appeal to the people to use it minimally and during particular hours, so that there is no noise pollution, there is no air pollution. You can also ensure in the market that what kind of crackers are made available. Those which are very harmful, can have their sales restricted. Those which are less harmful, their sales can be permitted", the Bench added.

Parmeshwar submitted that on 15th October 2025, the Courthad balanced the matter. He stated that the sale was permitted only for a specific category of firecrackers approved by NEERI, establishing a far more rigorous regime than the one applied in the Arjun Gopal matter. He pointed out that there was a designated list of specific crackers permitted for sale, and emphasized that as far as the National Capital Region (NCR) was concerned, there was no manufacturing taking place at all.

He also added that the Court had restricted the timings for those specific days. He submitted that the association had no difficulty with that middle path, noting that it was merely an interim order intended for the preceding year, with the understanding that the bench would review the position.

The Court responded, "The moment you pass a restrictive order, people take it as if it's a kind of coercive action and then there is a human reaction. We should be very practical and pragmatic in these things. I think we have sufficient time that we should make an earnest appeal to the people: please go, whatever way you want to celebrate, you do that, but keep these two, three things in mind, and restrict your celebrations to particular hours."

Amicus added, "You may send this matter to CAQM and let them also take on board. Because I am—what I am flagging is the health of the citizens, and the health of geriatrics, the healths of children, and the health of the infant. So it's very nice to say, and it sounds really nice in court, that it's only two hours, it is one hour. I'm sorry, you also knows that it's not implemented, and it's impossible for cops to be in every street all the time. It will not be implemented. So these nice arguments really don't play on the ground."

She added, "Because fireworks is not part of religion. Worship is. Firecrackers are not. Gods would be aghast if they knew that children are being—children are suffering and getting sick in their name."

Previously, the Court had closed the 1985 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India writ petition to eliminate the misleading impression that the case has remained undecided for over 40 years. The Court observed that while the original case involved a "continuous mandamus" to control pollution, the constant stream of Interlocutory Applications (IAs) had created a statistical logjam. The Bench has transitioned the matter into a Suo Motu proceeding specifically titled "Issues of Air Pollution in NCR."

Another bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice M M Sundresh, had remarked that a total ban on firecrackers would have a "sentimental effect", while allowing them throughout the day would severely impact living beings, including children and the elderly, as it granted time to the Union of India to conduct open-ground testing for firecrackers containing barium.

The Court had also asked the Central Pollution Control Board to respond to the query of whether a partial relaxation with respect to certain types of crackers may be possible, with specific reference to noise.

Cause Title: IN RE: Curbing Air Pollution In The National Capital Region - Solid Waste Management And Burning Of Crop Residue And Firecrackers Vs [SMW(C) No. 15/2026]

Tags: