A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Agustine George Masih, addressing the annual air quality crisis, also urged the Delhi government to make a decision on a permanent firecracker ban by November 25.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court instructed the Delhi Police today(11th Nov) to take “immediate action” to stop the sale and bursting of firecrackers in the city, despite the existing ban. The court emphasized that “no religion encourages pollution,” adding that the use of firecrackers affects the fundamental right to health.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Agustine George Masih, addressing the annual air quality crisis, also urged the Delhi government to make a decision on a permanent firecracker ban by November 25.
‘No religion supports any activity that causes pollution. The bursting of firecrackers in this manner also infringes upon the fundamental right to health of citizens.'”
BRIEF FACTS
The hearing follows a previous reprimand of the Delhi government and police, who were issued notices to explain their failure to enforce the ban, which is announced every year before Diwali but often goes unheeded. In response, the Delhi Police chief submitted an affidavit detailing the steps taken, but the court remained unconvinced.
The Bench was reviewing the pollution situation in Delhi and evaluating the actions of authorities in Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh to tackle stubble burning incidents.
In the previous hearing, the Court had questioned the Delhi government and Delhi Police regarding the violation of the firecracker ban during Diwali celebrations. The Court had also urged the Delhi government to consider a permanent ban on firecrackers.
In response, the Delhi government stated it would consider the Court’s recommendation for a perpetual ban after consulting various stakeholders. The Court then asked which stakeholders would be consulted and emphasized that a decision should be made before the new year.
The Court also stated,
“If anyone claims the right to burn firecrackers under Article 21, let them come forward.” It instructed the government to make a decision by November 25.
Additionally, the Court asked neighboring states to report on the steps taken to minimize pollution in their regions. Regarding firecracker use in Delhi during Diwali, the Court noted the Delhi government’s explanation that it was the Delhi Police’s responsibility to enforce the ban.
The Court then directed the Commissioner of Police to immediately inform all concerned parties about the ban, which will remain in effect until January 1, 2025. It also ordered the Commissioner to set up a Special Cell to ensure proper enforcement of the ban. The Court instructed the Police Commissioner to file a personal affidavit detailing the actions taken to enforce the ban.
The Court further questioned the Delhi government for delaying the imposition of the ban, noting that it was possible many users had already acquired firecrackers before the order was issued.
In October, the Supreme Court had initially noted that the Union government had not taken penal action to curb stubble burning. It had directed the Central government to amend the law to increase fines for farmers involved in stubble burning, which has since been done.
Today, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, representing some farmers, argued that machinery was not being provided to stop stubble burning.
However, the Court dismissed this claim, stating,
“We will not entertain this. You say you won’t act unless the state does, but you continue stubble burning.”
The Court added, “Now we understand why you’re here. After we passed strong orders to prosecute violators, you have come forward.” Ultimately, the Court decided to list the farmers’ intervention application.
While the Delhi Police claimed the ban order was issued only on October 14, the Court criticized the lack of seriousness in enforcing it. It stated that the ban was not communicated to firecracker vendors, manufacturers, or sellers.
“After October 14, did the police go and stop the sale of firecrackers at licensed locations?” the court asked.
The police responded affirmatively, but the court dismissed the actions as “eyewash,” pointing out that only raw materials for crackers had been seized.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
