A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale said that the authorities must explain what action was taken after the Court permitted the sale of green crackers for a limited period in October 2025, including whether enforcement teams were constituted, inspections and searches were conducted, prohibited firecrackers were seized, and prosecutions were initiated.

“Did you form teams? Did you make an inquiry? Did you make any search of the licence holders? What did you find? How many FIRs have you filed? How many other cases have you filed? Did you seize the material? What did you actually do? See now otherwise there is no point in passing orders and issuing all these directions unless on ground you really give effect to it. It becomes a mere mockery then. Enforcement data has not been filed. That is something you ought to have filed. Unless whatever the order passed, the implementing mechanism is put into operation, it's not going to have any effect at all”, Justice Sundresh said.

The Court said it would pass an order within a couple of days and require the authorities to file an affidavit detailing the measures taken, the implementation difficulties encountered and the steps needed to improve enforcement. It indicated that the proceedings would remain pending so that the implementation of its directions could be monitored.

The Court said it was not inclined to impose a complete ban on firecrackers at this stage, acknowledging the public's festive sentiments. However, it warned the authorities against forcing it to adopt a “very hard stand” through continued non-compliance.

“We also understand the sentiment of the public. Somebody who wants to celebrate an occasion, it boosts their morale. On a logical sense, it creates a positivity in a person. Therefore, we are not inclined to completely ban it, because it will again have a spiralling effect. But then, having said that, please do not push us to take a very hard stand on this matter. You have to really call all your officers and make sure that they can go around and see what is happening on the ground. If you book a chalan, and if you take some action against somebody, cancel some licenses, and then fight some cases, things will automatically come down”, Justice Sundresh said.

The Court also called for wide publicity of the restrictions through television, newspapers and other public platforms. Justice Varale referred to public-awareness messages being broadcast on radio, while Justice Sundresh suggested involving prominent sportspersons and other respected public figures to encourage compliance.

“Somebody like, you know, the celebrated cricketers like Virat Kohli or somebody, you can request him to make a segment that let us make this Diwali as one that is enjoyable. Let us enjoy the spirit of the festival of light. It's a festival of light. As rightly said, it was not there originally. The problem came when the fireworks started coming. When the gunpowder came, right from the 14th century, 15th century, this would have totally gotten in. Because instantly it comes out. Otherwise, you know, we will light the lamp and then everybody will do it in a leisurely way. It's so beautiful. At the end of the day, it's fire. The difference in the fire is when it is part of the lamp, you worship. When it goes otherwise, you know, you condemn it”, he said.

He added, "But we are taking a different stand. There's nothing wrong. We are not saying anything because, you know, this practice can change. Faith is something, practice is something. Practice is to give effect to the faith...But then, we have to send a message here."

The Court also suggested that educational institutes should be directed to sensitise children about the effects of firecracker pollution, observing that children could influence their parents' behaviour.

“We have to send a message here. Now, see, my little experience is that children, the present generation are very skeptical about it. It is only the problem with the others. But if you really educate the children, they will tell their parents not to do this. Young generation, they don't want to, they will celebrate Diwali, no problem at all, but they don't believe in firecrackers”, he said.

During the hearing, Amicus curiae Senior Advocate Uttara Babbar told the Court that no comprehensive report had been filed on the implementation of the October 15, 2025 order, which permitted the sale of green crackers for a limited period as a test case. The order had prescribed measures including designated sale locations, patrolling teams, QR-code verification, random sampling, seizure of prohibited products and monitoring of air quality.

She said that the Court had also directed the Central Pollution Control Board, in consultation with the State Pollution Control Boards, to monitor air quality and report its findings. However, there was no holistic assessment of the impact of the relaxation, including the analysis of sand and water samples or a comprehensive assessment of public-health consequences, she said.

She pointed out that only nine of Delhi's 39 continuous ambient air quality monitoring stations had provided continuous readings during the intervening night of October 20 and 21, 2025, when Diwali was celebrated. Missing data, particularly during pollution spikes, made it difficult to assess the actual deterioration in air quality, she said.

She also relied on concerns raised by the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) in September 2025 regarding the lack of field-level testing of firecrackers, gaps in monitoring and enforcement, and the need to verify whether products sold in the market actually used approved green-cracker formulations.

She submitted that conventional firecrackers were being sold under green labels, while QR codes were either missing, non-functional or fraudulent. She argued that green crackers, which are said to reduce particulate emissions by around 30 per cent compared with conventional crackers, are not pollution-free.

She referred to the Supreme Court's April 3, 2025 order, which held that the earlier complete ban could not be reconsidered unless the Court was satisfied that pollution caused by green crackers had been reduced to the bare minimum.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati agreed that the escalation in pollution following the bursting of firecrackers was evident. She also noted that the AQI data showed an increase during the period when firecrackers had been permitted the previous year.

She said that the CPCB had filed an affidavit containing AQI data in November 2025. However, the amicus pointed out that the affidavit did not address the full set of enforcement measures required under the Court's October 15 order.

Justice Varale asked whether the authorities had disclosed the dates on which enforcement teams visited locations, the places inspected, the data collected and the findings of those inspections.

Justice Sundresh said that the authorities needed to explain what they had actually done after the Court's earlier order. He said that the conditions imposed by the Court would serve no purpose unless the authorities demonstrated that the enforcement mechanism had been put into operation.

Bhati acknowledged that the enforcement data had not been placed before the Court. Justice Sundresh asked the authorities to take the matter up at a higher level and ensure that the Court's directions were implemented seriously.

Court says action should focus on sellers and traders

Justice Sundresh acknowledged the logistical difficulties involved in monitoring a large region such as Delhi-NCR but said that the authorities had to make a conscious effort to enforce restrictions.

Rather than concentrating on end-users, the authorities should tighten enforcement against sellers and traders, he said, adding that action against violators, including cancellation of licences and prosecution, would help reduce illegal sales.

Justice Sundresh said the issue concerned every living being and could not be treated as an adversarial dispute. He referred to the effects of pollution on children, elderly people, persons with disabilities, the sick, birds and animals.

“Certainly, the change of mind of the public will take its time. At the same time, we have different people here. Like you said, we have children, we have old people, we have people with disabilities, we have physically disabled persons, specially abled persons. How many sick people? It is very, very difficult. What about the birds and animals? We have to take care of everybody. When you think about it, you have to think about the larger picture here. We are very sorry that every year we pass an order. It becomes very academic. As a court, we also try to balance it out. I think you have to do something about this”, he said.

He said the Court understood the sentiments associated with festivals and the positive feelings that celebrations could generate. However, he noted that Article 25 of the Constitution was subject to public health and the other rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.

He added that the authorities should begin a sustained process of reducing pollution rather than treating the issue as a recurring annual exercise. Even a reduction of 25 per cent this year, followed by further reductions in subsequent years, would represent progress, he observed.

The Court said that the authorities need to review their enforcement efforts and ensure that the measures directed by it were actually implemented.

Petitioner highlights repeated violations of orders to regulate firecrackers

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan for the petitioner sought continuation of the complete ban on firecrackers, arguing that the authorities had repeatedly failed to comply with the Supreme Court's directions over several years.

He said the proceedings had been pending since 2015 and all orders concerning the use of barium, QR-code labelling, transportation of firecrackers into Delhi-NCR, online sales and restrictions on use had been violated.

Sankarnarayanan referred to a CBI report which recorded violations by manufacturers who had obtained stocks of barium despite successive bans imposed by the Court. He also alleged that prohibited firecrackers continued to be sold online and that conventional firecrackers were being sold under the guise of green crackers.

He argued that the Court had never adequately tested the consequences of maintaining a complete ban while requiring the authorities to report on its enforcement. If the ban were allowed to remain in place and the Delhi Police were directed to submit an enforcement report, the Court could assess how air quality would be affected by effective compliance, he submitted.

Sankarnarayanan also argued that the public-awareness measures and restrictions previously ordered by the Court had not been implemented. He urged the Court should allow the ban to continue for the present rather than relax it again without knowing whether last year's conditions had been enforced.

“Just once on behalf of the citizens of Delhi-NCR, my plea is just once, let the ban stay and let a report come from the authorities to show how compliance was enforced. Just once for our poor lungs,” he submitted.

Sankaranarayanan also contended that firecracker pollution is not a short-lived phenomenon merely because the bursting is concentrated around festivals.

“These PM 2.5 particles which are the most dangerous, if I were to take a PM 2.5 particle and drop it from here, it will take one month for it to hit the ground. It remains here in the ambient air continuously. So even if it's just two days or three days of fireworks for a few hours, it remains in the air for up to three months. Up to three months, 2% of the entire annual pollution of Delhi, annual pollution of Delhi is contributed by fireworks alone”, he submitted.

The amicus supported the plea for a more stringent approach in Delhi-NCR. She also sought directions to the urged the authorities to consult public-health representatives before deciding what kinds of firecrackers should be permitted.

Firecracker manufacturers oppose complete ban

Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak, appearing for firecracker manufacturers and traders, opposed a complete ban, arguing that previous prohibitions had not eliminated the use of firecrackers and had instead encouraged the proliferation of Chinese products, illegal goods and unlicensed crackers.

He submitted that regulation and enforcement would be more effective than a complete prohibition. He also argued that Delhi constituted less than three per cent of the approximately 55,000-square-kilometre NCR region and that air-quality conditions were not uniform across the entire region.

He also pointed to the work undertaken by CSIR-NEERI to develop lower-emission formulations and suggested that authorities tighten enforcement by publishing licence details, verifying product-specific QR codes, conducting random inspections and cancelling the licences of manufacturers found violating the rules.

He proposed allowing certified green crackers under a stricter regulatory framework, with restrictions on certain products, surprise sampling, public disclosure of licensed traders and awareness campaigns.

Towards the end of the hearing, he said that the licences of the parties he represented for Delhi had been cancelled pursuant to the Court's order. He sought restoration of the licences, offering an undertaking that the parties would comply with the Court's directions.

Justice Sundresh declined to entertain the request at that stage, observing that it was “too late in the day” with only about 10 days remaining before Diwali.

The issue concerning the use of barium-based firecrackers was deferred for three weeks after the Union government sought time to complete its internal consultations.

Background

On April 3, 2025, the Supreme Court imposed a year-round ban on the manufacture, storage, sale, distribution and use of firecrackers throughout Delhi-NCR, rejecting pleas to limit the prohibition to certain months. The Court refused to exempt green crackers unless sufficient scientific evidence establishing minimal pollution is produced. It subsequently directed the NCR states to implement the ban through orders under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

However, on October 15, 2025, a three-judge bench relaxed the ban for Diwali as a temporary measure, permitting the sale and use of approved green crackers during specified periods and subject to conditions, including restrictions on sale locations, bursting hours and the types of crackers permitted.

Last month, the Court allowed next-generation joint crackers (ladis) subject to safeguards but deferred permission for barium-containing crackers pending further testing. The Court also ruled out a complete ban on firecrackers. On October 12, 2026, the Court again.

The Supreme Court in March 2026 formally closed the decades-old M.C. Mehta v. Union of India case concerning air pollution in Delhi NCR, which had been pending since 1985. The Court observed that the outstanding issues had evolved considerably over the years and required a more structured approach than continuing to address them through applications in the original public interest litigation.

It registered fresh proceedings and converted pending applications requiring consideration on merits into separate writ petitions, organised by subject matter. One of the resulting proceedings is the present suo motu case, titled In Re: Curbing Air Pollution in the National Capital Region – Solid Waste Management and Burning of Crop Residue and Firecrackers.

In earlier proceedings, the Supreme Court has noted that approximately 3,000 tonnes of Delhi's municipal solid waste remained untreated every day. It directed the Delhi Government and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to strictly enforce Rule 4 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, which requires waste generators to segregate and properly dispose of waste, and to initiate penal proceedings under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, against violators.

On crop-residue burning, the bench led by Justice Abhay Oka in October 2024 criticised Punjab, Haryana and the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) for failing to initiate criminal prosecution against violators despite existing directions. The Court subsequently directed the Union government to establish the machinery required to enforce environmental penalties and emphasised that stricter action was necessary against officials responsible for non-compliance.

On September 17, 2025, a bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai asked the Centre to consider introducing a penal provision specifically targeting farmers who burn crop residue.

In January 2026, the Court directed Delhi and other NCR authorities to submit action-taken plans on CAQM's long-term pollution-control recommendations, including procurement of crop-residue management machinery, strengthening the supply chain for off-site utilisation of paddy straw, promoting biomass-based plants and improving satellite-based detection and enforcement.