Judgement Briefs

Environmental Law

Arjun Gopal v. Union of India - Green Firecrackers Case II

(2019) 13 SCC 523; AIR 2018 SC 5731

Citation
(2019) 13 SCC 523; AIR 2018 SC 5731
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
23 Oct 2018
Bench
A.K. Sikri & Ashok Bhushan, JJ.

Facts

  • Following earlier interim orders, the Supreme Court considered detailed submissions from:
  • firecracker manufacturers;
  • government bodies;
  • scientific institutions;
  • environmental applicants.
  • Evidence concerned:
  • particulate pollution;
  • toxic chemicals;
  • noise;
  • festival-time air-quality deterioration;
  • employment in the firecracker industry.
  • A complete nationwide ban was requested.
  • Manufacturers argued that:
  • firecrackers were not the sole pollution source;
  • livelihoods depended upon the industry;
  • cleaner formulations could reduce emissions.
  • Scientific bodies proposed improved and “green” crackers.

Issue

  • Whether firecrackers should be completely banned.
  • Whether only reduced-emission products should be permitted.
  • What restrictions on manufacture, sale, timing and enforcement were necessary.
  • How health rights should be balanced with trade and cultural activity.

Rule

  • Article 21 protects health and clean air.
  • Article 19(1)(g) trade rights are subject to reasonable public-health restrictions.
  • Religious and cultural practices are subject to health, environment and the rights of others.
  • The precautionary principle supports restrictions on toxic ingredients and high-emission products.
  • Regulation may include:
  • product standards;
  • time limits;
  • licensed sales;
  • prohibition of online and illegal trade;
  • enforcement responsibility.

Application

  • The Court rejected both extremes:
  • unrestricted sale and use;
  • an immediate complete prohibition on every firecracker.
  • It considered whether technology could materially reduce emissions.
  • Only green or improved crackers meeting approved standards were permitted.
  • The Court prohibited or restricted:
  • barium salts;
  • joined or series crackers;
  • products exceeding noise limits;
  • manufacture outside approved formulations.
  • Sale was limited to licensed traders.
  • Online marketplaces could not sell firecrackers because they made regulatory verification difficult.
  • Use was restricted to specified hours.
  • For Diwali and similar festivals, the main window was limited to 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.
  • Community firecracker displays were encouraged, particularly in the NCR, to reduce dispersed emissions.
  • The Court considered workers and manufacturers.
  • It did not treat employment as a defence to harmful production.
  • Instead, it allowed the industry to continue only through cleaner technology.
  • Enforcement responsibility was placed upon:
  • police;
  • district administration;
  • licensing authorities;
  • manufacturers.
  • The Court made senior officials accountable for failure to enforce the directions.
  • The judgment recognised that product regulation would be ineffective if prohibited conventional crackers remained widely available.

Conclusion

  • The Supreme Court permitted only approved green and reduced-emission firecrackers.
  • Conventional high-emission formulations and specified harmful chemicals were prohibited.
  • Sales were restricted to licensed traders, with online sales barred.
  • Time limits were imposed for use.
  • Community displays and monitoring were encouraged.
  • The Court balanced livelihood and cultural interests through regulated cleaner products, while giving priority to public health.
  • Use this case for: nationwide product, sale and time regulation of firecrackers rather than an unrestricted or complete-ban approach.