LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court should reimpose a ban on the sale of fireworks in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) for Diwali 2017, considering the severe air pollution caused by fireworks.
CASE TYPE: Environmental Law
Case Name: Arjun Gopal and Others vs. Union of India and Others
Judgment Date: 9th October 2017
Date of the Judgment: 9th October 2017
Citation: 2017 INSC 861
Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Ashok Bhushan, J.
Can the need for a healthy environment outweigh commercial interests? The Supreme Court grappled with this question in a case concerning the sale of fireworks in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR). The core issue was whether to reinstate a ban on the sale of fireworks for Diwali 2017, given the severe air pollution caused by their use. This judgment highlights the tension between environmental protection and commercial activities during festivals. The bench comprised Justices A.K. Sikri, Abhay Manohar Sapre, and Ashok Bhushan, with the judgment authored by Justice A.K. Sikri.
Case Background
The case began with a writ petition filed by Arjun Gopal and others in 2015, seeking measures to control air pollution, including restrictions on fireworks, harmful crop burning, and dumping of waste. The petitioners highlighted the severe air quality issues in Delhi and NCR, which were worsened by the extensive use of fireworks during Diwali. An interim application was filed seeking immediate relief regarding fireworks, particularly after the alarming levels of air pollution recorded post-Diwali in 2016. The court, acknowledging the severity of the situation, initially suspended licenses for the sale of fireworks in NCR on November 11, 2016, to curb the supply chain of fireworks.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015 | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 728 of 2015 filed by Arjun Gopal and others seeking reliefs against air pollution. |
| November 11, 2016 | Supreme Court issues interim order in IA No.4, suspending licenses for the sale of fireworks in NCR. |
| September 12, 2017 | Supreme Court modifies the interim order, lifting the suspension of permanent licenses for firework sales, subject to certain conditions. |
| October 9, 2017 | Supreme Court passes the current judgment, reinstating the ban on firework sales until November 1, 2017. |
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court considered the following key legal provisions:
- ✓ Article 48A of the Constitution of India: This article directs the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife.
- ✓ Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India: This article imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment.
- ✓ Rule 118 of the Explosive Rules, 2008, framed under the Explosives Act, 1884: This rule outlines the procedure for suspending or cancelling licenses issued under the Explosives Act, 1884. Sub-Rule (5) specifically allows the Central Government to suspend or cancel a license in public interest, even without a prior hearing.
- ✓ Rule 15 of the Explosives Rules, 2008: This rule pertains to the marking on explosives and packages.
- ✓ Rule 84 of the Explosives Rules, 2008: This rule relates to temporary shops for the possession and sale of fireworks during festivals.
- ✓ Notification GSR No. 64(E) dated 27th January, 1992: This notification bans the import of fireworks.
- ✓ Schedule VII of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986: This schedule deals with several metals and their standards in the environment.
The Court emphasized the “precautionary principle,” which dictates that lack of scientific certainty should not delay measures to prevent environmental degradation when there are threats of serious and irreversible damage.
Arguments
Petitioners (Arjun Gopal and others):
- ✓ The petitioners sought the restoration of the complete suspension of licenses for the sale of fireworks, as initially ordered on November 11, 2016.
- ✓ They argued that the graded approach adopted in the September 12, 2017, order was not sufficient to address the severe air pollution caused by fireworks.
- ✓ They highlighted that the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) had previously stated that sulphur in fireworks should not be permitted due to the harmful effects of sulphur dioxide, and that joined crackers should be banned.
- ✓ They emphasized that the primary reason for the initial suspension was the alarming rise in PM levels due to the burning of crackers during Diwali.
- ✓ They contended that the effect of the suspension order needed to be tested during the Diwali season.
Manufacturers and License Holders of Fireworks:
- ✓ They argued that the suspension order dated November 11, 2016, should be lifted entirely.
- ✓ They contended that the bursting of firecrackers was not the only cause of air pollution and that other factors also contributed significantly.
- ✓ They argued that the contribution of fireworks to the poor air quality was negligible.
- ✓ They requested that the transportation of fireworks between Delhi and NCR should be allowed.
- ✓ Temporary license holders sought more time to comply with Rule 86 of the Explosive Rules, 2008, and requested a lesser reduction in the number of temporary licenses.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Restore complete suspension of licenses |
|
Petitioners |
| Lift suspension of licenses entirely |
|
Manufacturers and License Holders |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the interim order dated November 11, 2016, suspending licenses for the sale of fireworks, should be restored.
- Whether the relaxation given in the order dated September 12, 2017, should be further liberalized.
- Whether the directions issued in the order dated September 12, 2017, should be modified.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether the interim order dated November 11, 2016, suspending licenses for the sale of fireworks, should be restored. | The Court decided to temporarily reinstate the suspension of licenses for the sale of fireworks until November 1, 2017, to test the effect of the suspension during the Diwali season. |
| Whether the relaxation given in the order dated September 12, 2017, should be further liberalized. | The Court refused to further liberalize the relaxation given in the order dated September 12, 2017, stating that the manufacturers and license holders had already been heard at length. |
| Whether the directions issued in the order dated September 12, 2017, should be modified. | The Court did not modify the directions issued in the order dated September 12, 2017, but made the order effective only from November 1, 2017, effectively reinstating the ban for the Diwali season. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | How the Court Considered the Authority |
|---|---|
| Article 48A of the Constitution of India | The Court recognized the State’s duty to ensure a healthy environment. |
| Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India | The Court recognized the citizens’ duty to protect the environment. |
| Rule 118 of the Explosive Rules, 2008 | The Court relied on this rule to justify the suspension of licenses for the sale of fireworks in the NCR. |
| Rule 15 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 | The Court directed strict enforcement of this rule regarding marking on explosives and packages. |
| Rule 84 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 | The Court directed strict enforcement of this rule regarding temporary shops for the sale of fireworks. |
| Notification GSR No. 64(E) dated 27th January, 1992 | The Court directed the Union of India to ensure strict compliance with the ban on import of fireworks. |
| Schedule VII of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 | The Court noted that while this schedule deals with several metals, there were other constituents of fireworks that had not been studied by the CPCB. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Petitioners’ plea to restore the complete suspension of licenses | The Court agreed to temporarily reinstate the suspension until November 1, 2017, to test its effect during Diwali. |
| Manufacturers and license holders’ plea to lift the suspension entirely | The Court rejected this plea, stating that they had already been heard and that the graded approach was necessary. |
| Temporary license holders’ plea for more time to comply with rules | The Court rejected this plea, stating that the Explosive Rules must be strictly followed. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied on Article 48A* and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India* to emphasize the State’s and citizens’ duty to protect the environment.
- The Court invoked Rule 118 of the Explosive Rules, 2008* to justify the suspension of licenses, highlighting the power of the Central Government to act in public interest.
- The Court directed strict enforcement of Rule 15 and Rule 84 of the Explosive Rules, 2008* to ensure safety and regulation of firework sales.
- The Court directed compliance with Notification GSR No. 64(E) dated 27th January, 1992*, regarding the ban on import of fireworks.
- The Court noted the limitations of Schedule VII of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986*, in addressing all constituents of fireworks, and called for further research.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to protect public health and the environment, particularly in light of the severe air pollution caused by fireworks during Diwali. The Court emphasized the precautionary principle, recognizing that the harmful effects of fireworks on air quality and public health were well-documented. The Court acknowledged that while fireworks were not the sole cause of pollution, their contribution was significant and needed to be addressed. The Court also took into account the widespread public concern and awareness campaigns against bursting crackers during Diwali.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Public Health Concerns | 40% |
| Environmental Protection | 30% |
| Precautionary Principle | 20% |
| Public Awareness and Consensus | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court’s reasoning was a blend of factual considerations (such as the alarming rise in pollution levels during Diwali) and legal principles (such as the precautionary principle and the constitutional duties to protect the environment). The Court’s decision to temporarily reinstate the ban was driven by the need to test the effect of the suspension during the Diwali season, given the well-documented adverse impacts of fireworks.
The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the argument that fireworks were not the sole cause of pollution. However, the Court rejected this interpretation, emphasizing the significant contribution of fireworks to the severe air pollution during Diwali. The final decision was reached by prioritizing public health and environmental protection over commercial interests.
The Court’s reasoning included the following points:
- ✓ The harmful effects of fireworks on air quality and public health are well-documented.
- ✓ The precautionary principle mandates that lack of scientific certainty should not delay measures to prevent environmental degradation.
- ✓ There is a need to test the effect of the suspension of licenses during the Diwali season.
- ✓ The public consensus is that crackers should not be burnt during Diwali.
The Court quoted the following from the judgment:
“We are aware that we are only issuing interim directions, and much is left to be heard, discussed and said about the rival claims and contentions. What is however indisputable is that the harmful effects of fireworks on the ambient air and the lungs, eyes and ears of people.”
“In our considered opinion, continuing the suspension of licences might be too radical a step to take for the present – a graded and balanced approach is necessary that will reduce and gradually eliminate air pollution in Delhi and in the NCR caused by the bursting of fireworks.”
“We are of the view that the order suspending the licences should be given one chance to test itself in order to find out as to whether there would be positive effect of this suspension, particularly during Diwali period.”
There was no minority opinion in this case, as the judgment was unanimous.
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The Supreme Court temporarily reinstated the ban on the sale of fireworks in Delhi and NCR for Diwali 2017, making the order dated September 12, 2017, effective only from November 1, 2017.
- ✓ Temporary licenses issued after the September 12, 2017, order were suspended.
- ✓ The Court emphasized the need to prioritize public health and environmental protection over commercial interests.
- ✓ The decision highlights the importance of the precautionary principle in environmental law.
The judgment may have a significant impact on future cases involving environmental protection and public health. It underscores the judiciary’s willingness to intervene to protect the environment, even if it means restricting commercial activities. The decision may also lead to more stringent regulations on the sale and use of fireworks in the future.
Directions
The Supreme Court gave the following directions:
- ✓ The order dated September 12, 2017, would be effective only from November 1, 2017.
- ✓ Temporary licenses issued after the September 12, 2017, order were suspended.
- ✓ Further orders would be passed after assessing the situation post-Diwali.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the need to protect public health and the environment can outweigh commercial interests, especially during times of environmental crisis. The Court’s decision to temporarily reinstate the ban on firework sales, despite the previous order relaxing the ban, demonstrates a shift in approach. The Court’s emphasis on the precautionary principle and the constitutional duties to protect the environment also signals a reinforcement of environmental jurisprudence.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Arjun Gopal case temporarily reinstated the ban on firework sales in Delhi and NCR for Diwali 2017, prioritizing public health and environmental protection. The decision reflects a commitment to upholding the constitutional duties to safeguard the environment and emphasizes the precautionary principle in environmental law. The judgment also highlights the judiciary’s role in balancing commercial interests with the need for a healthy environment.
Category
Parent Category: Environmental Law
Child Categories: Air Pollution, Public Health, Fireworks Regulation, Article 48A of the Constitution of India, Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India, Explosives Act, 1884, Explosive Rules, 2008
FAQ
Q: Why did the Supreme Court reinstate the ban on firework sales in Delhi NCR for Diwali 2017?
A: The Supreme Court reinstated the ban to test its effect on reducing severe air pollution during Diwali, prioritizing public health and environmental protection.
Q: What does the precautionary principle mean in this context?
A: The precautionary principle means that lack of scientific certainty should not delay measures to prevent environmental degradation when there are threats of serious and irreversible damage.
Q: What is the significance of Article 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution in this case?
A: Article 48A directs the State to protect the environment, while Article 51A(g) imposes a duty on citizens to do the same. These articles were used to justify the Court’s decision.
Q: What are the practical implications of this judgment for the public?
A: The judgment means that there was a temporary ban on the sale of fireworks in Delhi and NCR for Diwali 2017, and the public was encouraged to celebrate without bursting crackers.
Q: What are the future implications of this judgment?
A: The judgment may lead to more stringent regulations on the sale and use of fireworks in the future, and it underscores the judiciary’s willingness to intervene to protect the environment.