Supreme Court Rules Out Complete Firecracker Ban, Proposes Approach Balancing Sentiments & Health
The Supreme Court today indicated that it would not impose a complete ban on firecrackers or permit their unrestricted use, emphasising the need to balance religious sentiments with the adverse impact of air pollution on children, elderly persons and those suffering from illnesses.
“We make it very clear. Neither we are going to agree with you for total ban. Nor we are going to allow them to do it 24 hours. For two reasons. Total ban will have some sentimental effect, number one. Number two, allowing them throughout the day will have a huge impact on every other living beings including old people, sick people and the children. We need to find a solution whereby we can give specified time and we can specify what are the crackers to be used”, Justice MM Sundresh said.
A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing the long-pending Arjun Gopal v. Union of India case filed by three infants highlighting the health hazards caused by firecrackers and seeking restrictions to curb air pollution.
Today, the Court considered the Union Government's proposal to permit the manufacture of joint firecrackers, subject to specified conditions, and the use of barium in green firecrackers, subject to further environmental testing.
The Court accepted the government's recommendation to allow new generation joint firecrackers subject to restrictions on the number and size of shells and the time interval between successive bursts. The recommendations were submitted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change following consultations with stakeholders and technical experts.
The Court, however, deferred consideration of the separate issue of firecracker regulations in Delhi-NCR for Diwali this year, in view of the overlapping proceedings pending before the Supreme Court in the MC Mehta v. Union of India case.
Court allows joint firecrackers (ladis) subject to conditions
Joint firecrackers, also known as ladis or series crackers, consist of multiple firecrackers connected together and designed to explode successively. Their manufacture, sale and use had been prohibited by the Supreme Court in 2018 owing to concerns over air pollution, noise pollution and solid waste.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the Court that the Ministry had consulted stakeholders and obtained recommendations from the CSIR-National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (CSIR-NEERI) regarding the specifications for joint firecrackers.
Bhati submitted that the Ministry was now recommending that joint firecrackers be permitted, subject to conditions prescribed by CSIR-NEERI, including restrictions on shell size, the number of shells and the time interval between successive bursts.
The Court had on July 22 asked the government to examine whether a partial relaxation of the existing restrictions could be granted for certain types of firecrackers, subject to prescribed noise standard of 125 decibels.
Advocate Pranav Sachdeva, appearing for some of the manufacturers, submitted that the new specifications were based on further research conducted pursuant to the Court's directions. He submitted that the prescribed restrictions would help reduce particulate matter emissions.
However, Advocate Pooja Dhar for the petitioners opposed the proposal, arguing that the Court had previously prohibited such firecrackers and highlighted that the restrictions on the timing of firecracker use were not effectively enforced.
She added, “My lords, it can't get into the reduction in PM during Diwali time. Now the crop burning will also start. Those two days create so much of a havoc to the environment when all these firecrackers are there. There are specific directions for ban of these firecrackers...Those time limits are also not enforced. Because my lords, what happens is it's not just the Diwali. It starts from Dussehra, even before Dussehra, from Durga Puja.”
Justice Sundresh observed that the Court was not inclined to impose a complete ban on firecrackers, given the sentimental significance associated with their use during festivals. At the same time, he said that allowing their unrestricted use throughout the day would have a significant impact on living beings, including children, elderly persons and sick people.
The Court was inclined to accept the government's recommendation to allow joint firecrackers, subject to the restrictions.
Barium testing of Generation 2 Green Firecrackers
The Union Government sought additional time to complete outdoor testing to assess the environmental impact of barium in Generation 2 green firecrackers.
Bhati said that the Court that CSIR-NEERI and the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) had recommended conducting outdoor tests in four cities, i.e., Delhi, Bhopal, Kolkata and Chennai, to assess the impact of barium-containing green firecrackers under different air-quality conditions. The testing follows lab tests of the proposed formulations, she said, adding that CPCB and NEERI require further outdoor testing for assessment of impact due to Barium content in Generation 2 Green Fire Crackers.
She sought time until October 15 to submit the results of the outdoor testing.
On September 2, the Court had granted CSIR-NEERI two weeks to undertake the proposed study on the impact of barium content in Generation 2 green firecrackers at the four locations. It had also directed the ASG to provide details of the safeguards recommended for joint firecrackers.
Today, Bhati submitted that while joint firecrackers could be allowed subject to the recommended safeguards, the issue of use of barium would depend on the outcome of the outdoor testing. The Court agreed to take up the matter on October 15.
Court to consider firecracker restrictions for Delhi-NCR separately
The Court also considered whether the proposed relaxations for firecrackers should apply to Delhi-NCR, which is subject to restrictions imposed by the Supreme Court in the MC Mehta case.
Senior Advocate K Parameshwar appearing for some firecracker manufacturers and traders, submitted that the issues in the present case (Arjun Gopal) and the MC Mehta case overlapped and should ideally be heard together to avoid conflicting directions.
He referred to an order passed by a three-judge bench in the MC Mehta case on October 15, 2025, which had noted the existence of parallel proceedings concerning firecracker restrictions and the need to harmonise the directions issued in both matters.
Parameshwar submitted that manufacturers and traders in Delhi-NCR should be allowed to stock and sell firecrackers during the Diwali season, subject to the Court's directions. He said that Delhi should not be excluded from a pan-India regime without consideration of the issues pending before the other bench.
Advocate Pooja Dhar for the petitioners, however, opposed extending a pan-India relaxation to Delhi-NCR. She highlighted the region's distinct air-pollution concerns. She also pointed out that an application filed by the petitioners specifically sought a ban on the manufacture, transportation, distribution, sale and purchase of firecrackers in Delhi-NCR.
Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak for some Delhi-based fire cracker traders sought restoration of cancelled licences, contending that it would enable them to operate subject to the orders passed by the Court, without having to undergo the process of applying for fresh licences.
The Court was informed that the MC Mehta proceedings had earlier resulted in a complete ban on firecrackers, including green firecrackers, in Delhi-NCR. Subsequently, in October 2025, a three-judge bench relaxed the restrictions for Diwali, allowing the use of green firecrackers subject to specified conditions.
Today, the bench permitted the parties to make an appropriate mention before the bench led by the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who is hearing the MC Mehta case, for the overlapping issues concerning Delhi-NCR to be considered together. It clarified that it would not pass any order on the Delhi-NCR issue at this stage.
The Court also said that the other applications, including the one seeking a ban on the manufacture and sale of firecrackers, would be taken up for hearing.