The Supreme Court orally observed that it was not inclined to impose a complete ban on firecrackers in Delhi-NCR as it could have a spiralling effect, but cautioned the authorities not to push it to take a harsh stand.

The Bench stressed that its orders would become a “mockery” if the implementing mechanism was not put into operation on the ground, and directed the Union of India to file an affidavit on the enforcement measures taken.

The Court also suggested that respected public figures, such as sportspersons, be engaged to spread awareness for a pollution-free Diwali.

Previously, the Court 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 Bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale orally observed, "Why can't you use the services of prominent personalities to make the public awareness, like the sportsmen, or the public figure which are highly respected, from any walk of life?"

It was added, "Like cricket celebrity, like Virat Kohli—somebody you can request him to make a statement: 'Let us make this Diwali one that is enjoyable, let us enjoy the spirit of life.' If the festival, right as rightly said, it was not there originally. It was not there originally, it was not; the problem came when the fireworks started coming. When the gunpowder came, right from the 14th century, 15th century, this would have gotten in. Then, because it instantly comes out... otherwise, you know, we light the lamp and then everybody will do it in a necessary way and then, you know, it's so beautiful; just at the end of the day it's fire. The difference with fire is when it's part of the lamp, you worship. When it goes otherwise, you know, you can't love it. So, what we are taking is a different standard—nothing wrong, we are not saying anything because, you know, all this practice can change. Faith is something, practice is something; practice is to give effect to the faith."


Senior Advocate Gopal S appeared for the Applicants, while ASG Aishwarya Singh Bhati appeared for the Union of India.

The Court was hearing an Application in a writ petition which was filed in 2015, on behalf of three infants seeking a blanket ban on the sale and use of firecrackers in the National Capital Region (NCR), citing deteriorating air quality. Pursuant to this, the Court passed several interim orders in the matter. In 2018, the Court passed orders and banned barium salts in fireworks, banned the manufacture, sale and use of joined firecrackers (series crackers or laris) as the same causes huge air, noise and solid waste problems.

The Bench orally observed that the matter was not adversarial and concerned every living being. It stressed that orders had to be implemented seriously and asked the Union to disclose what action had been taken, whether the material was seized, and whether any changes had occurred in the crackers.

It noted that traders, owing to the seasonal nature of the business, tended to maximise sales, resulting in some spurious products, which required strict regulation. It remarked that orders became a “mockery” if the implementing mechanism was not operationalised and directed that an affidavit be filed.

ASG Bhati submitted that an enforcement mechanism existed but had not been placed before the Court.

The Bench observed that while it was not inclined to impose a complete ban, as it could have a spiralling effect, the authorities should not push it to take a harsh stand. It noted that Article 25(1) was subject to public health and Part III of the Constitution, and that the law was well settled.

It was remarked, "Now by what's happening is say right when we tell you, now we are armed with your order, pollution takes place. See, we also understand the sentiment of the public, say somebody who want to celebrate this occasion, it gives, it boosts their morale, you know, on a logical sense it will be, leave alone the religion. If you see on the logical sense, yes, it boosts your morale, it creates a positivity in a person. So, therefore we are not inclined to completely ban it, because you know it will again have a spiraling effect. But then, having said that, please don't push us to take a very harsh stand on this matter. Unless you, you have to really call on your officers, and make sure that, see we only have, we are saying that please concentrate on these two days, two days. Your officers, you know, will have to probably forget about celebrating their own festival, they can celebrate it at the proper time. But, you know, they can they can go around and see what's happening on ground and if you book a challan and if you take some action against somebody, cancel some licenses and then fight some cases, then things will automatically come down."

The Bench observed that while it was not inclined to impose a complete ban, as it could have a spiralling effect, the authorities should not push it to take a harsh stand. It noted that Article 25(1) was subject to public health and Part III of the Constitution, and that the law was well settled. It asked the authorities to focus enforcement on the two key days, through challans, cancellation of licences and prosecution. It also took note of the concerns of children, the elderly, persons with disabilities, pregnant women, the sick, and birds and animals.

The Bench said, "Did you seize the material? What did you actually do? See now, otherwise, there's no point in passing orders and issuing all these conditions, unless on the ground you really give effect to it. It becomes near mockery then...see that's something you have to file. Then only I will be able to appreciate and improve upon it. See unless, you know, see whatever the order passed, if the implementing mechanism is not put into operation, yes, it's not going to have any effect at all."

To which ASG Bhati said, "The enforcement mechanism is there, but it was not placed before you."

Senior Advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan informed the Court that, as per the ASG, the barium issue would not be taken up that day. Counsel pointed out that an affidavit showed a 45 to 60 per cent reduction in emissions. ASG Aishwarya Bhati sought more time on the barium issue, as internal consultation was incomplete. Justice Sundresh agreed to take it up the following week.

Senior Advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan submitted that the Court’s orders had been repeatedly violated, contempt petitions had been filed, and a CBI report showed that manufacturers had breached the law and stocked barium despite seven earlier bans.

The Amicus Curiae submitted that bursting of firecrackers released large quantities of particulate matter and toxic gases, which entered the lungs and bloodstream and affected all organs. It was submitted that residents of Delhi-NCR lost 4.74 years of life expectancy due to high PM exposure, and that air pollution was linked to cardiovascular disease, cancer, strokes, congenital defects, low birth weight and foetal deaths. The Amicus submitted that the ban was absolutely necessary, that the earlier relaxation was only on a test basis for a specified period, and that no reconsideration of earlier orders was warranted unless the Court was satisfied that pollution from green crackers was at the bare minimum.

Recently, another bench of 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.

The Court had 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. 

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 allowed the joint request of the Central Government and the Delhi Government by relaxing the ban on green firecrackers.

The Court had previously also raised questions over the selective imposition of the ban on firecrackers in the Delhi-NCR (National Capital Region). 

In September 2023, the Supreme Court had rejected two applications whereby the Firecracker manufacturers sought permission to manufacture firecrackers with new, improved formulations with barium plus additives, and joined firecrackers (series crackers or laris).

The Court, while reserving judgment in the matter, had directed the Delhi Police not to issue temporary licenses for sale and storage of any kind of firecrackers, saying that it would be difficult to segregate a green from a non-green firecracker.

Observing that regulations become a "mockery" if not implemented, the Supreme Court had also asked the Centre and regulatory bodies like the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO) to apprise it of measures taken to strengthen the protocols to ban production and sale of non-green firecrackers across the country.

Cause Title: Arjun Gopal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [IA No. 325852/2025 in Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 728/2015]

Tags: