A total ban on firecrackers would have a sentimental effect, but letting them be burst all day would harm children, the elderly and the sick, the Supreme Court has said, accepting the Centre’s proposal to allow joint firecrackers with restrictions and leaving the question of barium in green crackers for October 15.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday, September 30, indicated that it will neither impose a complete ban on firecrackers nor permit their unrestricted use, while hearing the long-pending petition filed by three infants on the health hazards of firecrackers [Arjun Gopal v. Union of India].
A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Augustine George Masih considered the Union Government’s proposal to permit the manufacture of joint firecrackers, subject to conditions, and the use of barium in green firecrackers, subject to further environmental testing.
Balancing sentiment and health
Justice Sundresh said the Court would not accept either extreme. He explained that a complete ban would have a sentimental effect, while allowing firecrackers throughout the day would have a huge impact on every other living being, including old people, sick people and children, and that a solution must fix a specified time and specify which crackers may be used. He put the Court’s position in these words:
“Neither we are going to agree with you for total ban.”
Joint firecrackers accepted with conditions
Joint firecrackers, also called ladis or series crackers, are multiple firecrackers connected together to explode one after another. The Supreme Court had prohibited their manufacture, sale and use in 2018 over air pollution, noise pollution and solid waste. The Court accepted the recommendation of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, made after consulting stakeholders and technical experts, to allow new-generation joint firecrackers subject to limits on the number and size of shells and the time interval between successive bursts.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati told the Court that the specifications were recommended by CSIR-NEERI, and that the conditions include shell size, number of shells and the interval between bursts. On July 22, the Court had asked the Government to examine whether a partial relaxation was possible for certain crackers subject to a noise standard of 125 decibels. Advocate Pranav Sachdeva, for some manufacturers, said the new specifications were based on further research done on the Court’s directions and would help reduce particulate matter emissions.
Advocate Pooja Dhar, for the petitioners, opposed the proposal, arguing that the Court had earlier prohibited such crackers and that restrictions on timing were not effectively enforced. She submitted that firecracker use begins well before Diwali, from Durga Puja and Dussehra, and that the days around Diwali, coinciding with the start of crop burning, cause severe harm to the environment.
Barium in Generation 2 green crackers: outdoor testing
The Union sought more time to finish outdoor testing of the environmental impact of barium in Generation 2 green firecrackers. ASG Bhati said CSIR-NEERI and the Central Pollution Control Board had recommended outdoor tests in four cities, Delhi, Bhopal, Kolkata and Chennai, to assess barium-containing green crackers under different air-quality conditions, following laboratory tests of the proposed formulations. She sought time until October 15 to submit the results, and said joint firecrackers could be allowed on the recommended safeguards while the barium issue depends on the outcome of the testing. The Court had on September 2 granted CSIR-NEERI two weeks to undertake the proposed study and asked the ASG to give details of the safeguards for joint firecrackers. The Court agreed to take up the matter on October 15.
Delhi-NCR to be raised before the MC Mehta bench
The Court deferred the separate question of firecracker regulation in Delhi-NCR for Diwali this year because of the overlapping proceedings in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, which are before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar, for some manufacturers and traders, submitted that the two matters overlap and should be heard together, to avoid conflicting directions, and that Delhi should not be excluded from a pan-India regime without considering the issues pending before the other Bench. He referred to an order of a three-Judge Bench in the MC Mehta case of October 15, 2025, which noted the parallel proceedings and the need to harmonise directions, and said Delhi-NCR traders should be allowed to stock and sell during Diwali subject to the Court’s directions.
Advocate Pooja Dhar opposed extending a pan-India relaxation to Delhi-NCR, citing its distinct air-pollution concerns and an application by the petitioners seeking a ban on the manufacture, transport, distribution, sale and purchase of firecrackers in the region. Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak, for some Delhi-based traders, asked that cancelled licences be restored so that they can operate under the Court’s orders without applying afresh.
What the Court did on Delhi-NCR
The Court was told that the MC Mehta proceedings had earlier led to a complete ban on firecrackers, including green firecrackers, in Delhi-NCR, and that in October 2025 a three-Judge Bench relaxed the restrictions for Diwali, allowing green firecrackers on specified conditions. The Bench permitted the parties to mention the matter before the Bench led by the CJI so that the overlapping Delhi-NCR issues can be considered together, and clarified that it would pass no order on Delhi-NCR at this stage. It added that the other applications, including the one seeking a ban on the manufacture and sale of firecrackers, would be taken up for hearing.
Case Title: Arjun Gopal v. Union of India
Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 728 of 2015
Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: September 30, 2026
Appearance: ASG Aishwarya Bhati for the Union; Advocate Pooja Dhar for the petitioners; Advocate Pranav Sachdeva, Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar and Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak for manufacturers and traders