Total Ban Will Have Sentimental Effect: Apex Court Gives Time To Union For Open Ground Testing Of Barium Firecrackers

The Supreme 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.

On the previous date of hearing, 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.

The Bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale ordered, "In the course of the hearing, learned ASG sought time to furnish the following instructions from the ministry pertaining to joint firecrackers. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties on this issue, we are inclined to accept the suggestions made. That leaves us to the issue pertaining to the use of barium. Learned ASG appearing for the Union submits that open-ground testing will have to be made on the firecrackers using barium. Accordingly, we are inclined to give time for conducting such an exercise to be done on or before the 14th. Call the matter for further hearing on the 15th."

Justice Sundresh remarked, "Let me make it very clear. Neither are we going to agree with you for a total ban, nor are we going to allow them to do it 24 hours. For two reasons: a total ban will have some sentimental effect there, number one. Number two, allowing them throughout the day will have a huge impact on every other living being, including old people, sick people, and children. We need to find a solution by which we can give a specified time. And we can prescribe what crackers are to be used, subject to their complete ban."

Senior Advocate K Parmeshwar 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.

The Counsel for one of the Respondents submitted, "The formulas have changed. The time gap between the laddis and the shell size, the size of the pipe- everything has now been recommended because the Court said, "Do further research." So now, we will have to abide by all these regulations, which will result in PM reduction, a reduction in particulate matter."

To which the Counsel for the Petitioner replied, "It can't get into the reduction in PM. Now the crop burning will also start. Those two days create so much havoc for the environment when all these firecrackers are there. There are specific directions for banning these firecrackers.

ASG Bhati said, "The third point is what you may consider for Delhi-NCR for this Diwali time. Last year, by way of an interim order, some period was confined to two days, timing was fixed, etc. So for this year, what call do you take, though they are asking... the manufacturers are asking for a complete...We haven't put our stand before you, but you will have to consider that third aspect for Delhi-NCR. Barium and joint firecrackers you are considering for the entire country."

Senior Advocate K Parmeshwar, representing fireworks traders and shopkeepers associations, submitted that two Interlocutory Applications (IAs) were pending seeking permission to stock, sell, and burst manufactured firecrackers in Delhi during the Diwali season. He prayed for an expeditious hearing or moderation of orders before Diwali to enable traders to stock and sell firecrackers, requesting that Delhi not be isolated under a separate regime without consideration.

He also referred to the order dated October 15, 2025, passed in the M.C. Mehta matter, which recorded that overlapping issues existed between the Arjun Gopal and M.C. Mehta proceedings and suggested that both matters ought to be heard together for Delhi.

"Our concern is this: if there is a pan-India regime, Delhi should not be isolated for unnecessary reasons. I understand there are climatic conditions and pollution issues in Delhi. You should modify the order, moderate the order, whatever it is. Ideally, both matters should be heard together as far as Delhi is concerned. I am not standing in the way of the court passing any other order. But before the Diwali season, to enable us to stock crackers and also sell them, you will take a considered call; that's all I am saying", Parmeshwar said.

ASG Bhati urged the Court to consider the second aspect of joint firecrackers today. On the issue related to Delhi-NCR, the Court may take it up on 15th October. She said that the ministry will also undertake a consultation with the stakeholders.

The Court also ordered, "There is an incidental issue; there is a third issue involved which is specifically applicable to Delhi-NCR. Learned senior counsel appearing for some of the parties brought to the notice of this court that in the other matter pending in M.C. Mehta's case, an order was passed in the month of October 2025 by the Hon'ble First Bench that issues in both matters, namely the matters referred to before us, would be overlapping, and therefore it would be ideal to take both of them together. In such view of the matter, we only permit the learned counsel appearing for respective parties to make an appropriate mention before the Hon'ble Bench."

In 2018, the Court passed orders and banned barium salts in fireworks, and 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 Court had previously also raised questions over the selective imposition of the ban on firecrackers in the Delhi-NCR (National Capital Region). On October 15, 2025, the Court had allowed the sale and bursting of green firecrackers in Delhi-NCR for the festival of Diwali.

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.

In a 2021 order, the Court had noted that considering the matter pertained to public interest and that it affects the health of innocent citizens including senior citizens and children, it is the duty of all the States to ensure implementation of the Court’s directions. It was further noted that any lapse on the part of the State Governments or Agencies and Union Territories will be viewed very seriously.

In case of a breach, the Chief Secretary of the concerned State(s), the Secretary (Homes) of the concerned State(s) and the Commissioner of Police of the concerned area, the District Superintendent of Police of the concerned area and the SHO/Police Officer in-charge of the concerned police station shall be held personally liable.

An application had also been filed in 2021 to bring on record the tests done by ‘Awaaz Foundation’ alleging that the banned firecrackers are being manufactured, used and sold though they are specifically banned by the Apex Court. It further alleged that ‘green crackers’ are being sold in the market by fireworks manufacturers containing chemicals that have been banned by this Court and not only that, but even the fake QR codes are printed on the boxes, mislabelling them as ‘green crackers’.

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