Close on the heels of opposing the order to cine-goers to stand up for anthem, Supreme Court Judge Justice D Y Chandrachud has once again spoken out his mind on an issue being debated hotly in the society.
Today he congratulated justice A K Sikri for his order banning fire cracker sales and said “it ensured that we could breathe fresh air even after Diwali”.
The discussion happened during the Constitution bench hearing of the case – Kalpana Mehta and others Vs Union of India in which the constitution bench is deciding whether courts can rely on or refer to parliamentary committee reports in judicial proceedings.
AG Venugopal had said that the bench had read in large number of rights into Article 21 and wondered if they were enforceable.
Justice Chandrachud then said “all rights can be enforced. I am reminded of the order of my brother judge justice Sikri in the interest of a clean environment. It ensured we could breathe after Diwali
There was 66 percent less burning of crackers this year after the SC ban. The annual post-Diwali report by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) showed that particulate matter 10 (PM 10), which is a grainy pollutant that lodges in the upper respiratory system, ranged from 331-951 ig/m3. This is a drop from last year, when the figure was 448-939 ig/m3.
Last year thick smog had enveloped Delhi/NCR for three days after Diwali.
There were widespread protests after the cracker sale ban order with even attempts to give a political colour to it which Justice Sikri had condemned in open court. Fourteen people were detained for bursting firecrackers outside the Supreme Court to protest the temporary ban on the sale of firecrackers by the apex court. The members, who claimed to be from an outfit Azad Hind Fauj, burst firecrackers outside the apex court.
Meanwile some Pharma companies had earlier told the court that the report of a parliamentary standing committee has "persuasive" value but it is neither binding, nor can it be used to prove disputed facts
The issue whether a parliamentary panel report can be relied upon in judicial proceedings had arisen after the petitioners had referred to the 81st Report of Parliamentary Standing Committee, issued on December 22, 2014, allegedly indicting some pharma firms for conducting trials of the controversial Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine.
Earlier, the Centre, in its affidavit, had said the reports of parliamentary panels should not be used as evidence in a court of law.