Photo by Anirudh on Unsplash
In a significant development that could reshape the regulatory landscape surrounding firecrackers in the National Capital Region, the Supreme Court of India has signalled its willingness to reconsider its stringent April 2025 order that imposed a comprehensive year-long prohibition on the manufacture, storage, sale, and use of firecrackers across Delhi-NCR. This reconsideration announced on October 10, 2025, comes as the apex court reserved its judgment on petitions filed by manufacturers and traders seeking permission to resume production and sale of firecrackers in the region, particularly in light of the approaching Diwali festivities.
The judicial bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran indicated a potential middle path forward, suggesting that the court might permit the sale and use of environmentally certified green firecrackers during the festival of lights. These green crackers would need to carry certifications from two authoritative bodies, the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute and the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation. The Chief Justice made it clear that this permission would be granted on an experimental basis during Deepavali, with the court prepared to revisit and potentially modify its landmark 2018 judgment in the Arjun Gopal versus Union of India case if circumstances warranted such action. This approach reflects the judiciary's attempt to strike a delicate balance between cultural traditions and environmental imperatives.
The Arjun Gopal Precedent and Its Framework
The Arjun Gopal judgment of 2018 represents a crucial precedent in this ongoing legal debate. In that ruling, the Supreme Court had stopped short of imposing a complete prohibition on firecrackers but had permitted only the manufacture and sale of green variants—those producing reduced emissions and operating within permissible noise levels. The judgment had also established important restrictions on the sale mechanism, prohibiting online transactions and mandating that such environmentally friendly crackers could only be sold through properly licensed traders. This framework attempted to address pollution concerns while allowing the continuation of cultural practices associated with festivals.
Time Restrictions and Cultural Considerations
The time-slot restrictions proposed by the Centre reflect an attempt to limit the duration of firecracker usage while accommodating various festivals. For Diwali and other major celebrations, the proposal suggested a two-hour window between 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. For Christmas and New Year's Eve, fireworks would be permitted for a brief thirty-five-minute period around midnight. Gurpurab celebrations would be allowed one hour each during morning and evening. The proposal also contemplated permitting green crackers at weddings and private celebrations, acknowledging the broader cultural significance of fireworks beyond religious festivals.
However, in oral submissions, the Solicitor-General urged the bench to show flexibility regarding these time restrictions, making an emotional appeal on behalf of children who wish to celebrate festivals. The Chief Justice responded by invoking the principle of judicial propriety, indicating that the court would be bound by the precedent established in the Arjun Gopal judgment, which had prescribed specific timing restrictions. Senior advocate Sai Deepak, representing manufacturers, also sought accommodation for morning hours, noting that certain communities traditionally celebrate during daytime hours, reflecting Delhi's diverse cultural landscape.
Critical Infrastructure and Enforcement Gaps
A critical infrastructure challenge emerged during the proceedings when the amicus curiae highlighted serious deficiencies in the testing and enforcement mechanism. She pointed out that the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation lacks a dedicated chemical testing laboratory in the National Capital Region and must rely on the Forensic Science Laboratory for sample analysis. The statistics she presented were alarming: of fifty-five samples sent for testing in 2022, reports had been received for merely four samples, leaving fifty-one samples unanalysed. This massive backlog renders effective enforcement virtually impossible, as authorities cannot verify whether products in the market actually meet green cracker standards.
The Chief Justice acknowledged this limitation and indicated that the Delhi government would be directed to establish proper testing infrastructure immediately. However, Justice Chandran pragmatically observed that with Diwali approaching within a week, establishing new laboratory facilities would be impractical. He suggested an alternative approach involving random sampling by police and regulatory authorities, with action taken against manufacturers if problematic products were discovered. The judges also noted concerns about the misuse of product-specific QR codes, which were introduced to ensure the traceability and authenticity of certified green crackers.
Monitoring Framework and Industry Compliance
The Centre's comprehensive monitoring framework outlined multiple safeguards, including mandatory submission of QR codes to regulatory authorities, maintenance of detailed production and sales records, strict adherence to emission limits approved by NEERI, surprise inspections at various stages of the supply chain, and penalties, including license suspension and operational closure for violations.
Regional Impact Beyond Delhi-NCR
An important dimension of this case involves its impact beyond Delhi-NCR. Senior advocate K. Parameshwar, representing manufacturers, expressed willingness to sell green crackers exclusively through twenty-five to thirty designated outlets identified by the Delhi government, arguing that compliance served the industry's self-interest since their families also reside in the affected region. He emphasised that violations would inevitably result in reinstating the ban the following year.
More significantly, he raised concerns about the geographical scope of the April order, which extended beyond Delhi-NCR to cover fourteen districts in Haryana without consultation with affected stakeholders. Senior advocate Sai Deepak elaborated on this issue, arguing that the matter had evolved from a city-specific concern to an industry-wide problem affecting neighbouring states. The order's impact encompassed fourteen districts in Haryana and eight in Rajasthan, covering approximately fifty-five thousand square kilometres, without allowing states any discretion to act based on local air quality conditions.
The Path Forward
The petitioners, including the Federation of Fireworks Traders, the Association of Fireworks Haryana, and the Indic Collective Trust, challenged the ban's scientific foundation, contending that agricultural stubble burning and vehicular emissions contribute far more significantly to Delhi's notorious winter smog than firecrackers. The court had previously permitted manufacturers holding valid certifications to resume production while maintaining sales restrictions, acknowledging that blanket bans without effective enforcement mechanisms prove impractical. The Commission for Air Quality Management had subsequently highlighted persistent enforcement gaps, including allegations of manufacturers selling QR codes to unlicensed producers and the absence of systems to verify marketplace compliance. As the Supreme Court prepares to deliver its judgment, it faces the challenging task of reconciling environmental protection, cultural traditions, economic interests, and enforcement realities in crafting a workable regulatory framework for the region.
. . .
References: