The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the authorities over the absence of comprehensive data on the enforcement of restrictions governing firecrackers in Delhi-NCR, cautioning that judicial directions would serve little purpose unless they translated into effective action on the ground.
A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale was examining the implementation of its earlier directions permitting the sale of green firecrackers for a limited period in October 2025. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the failure to furnish a comprehensive account of the enforcement measures undertaken following the relaxation.
The Bench sought details of the teams deployed to monitor compliance, inspections conducted at licensed establishments, prohibited firecrackers seized, and cases registered against violators. It emphasised that authorities must demonstrate tangible action rather than merely rely on assurances of compliance.
The Court indicated that it would issue directions requiring the concerned authorities to submit an affidavit setting out the steps taken, the difficulties encountered in implementation and the measures necessary to strengthen enforcement. It also indicated that the matter would remain under judicial scrutiny.
Justice Sundresh observed that repeated judicial interventions would become ineffective if the administrative machinery failed to implement the directions issued by the Court.
The Bench stressed that the authorities must take responsibility for ensuring compliance and provide verifiable information about enforcement efforts. It questioned whether inspections had been conducted, whether illegal stocks had been confiscated and whether prosecutions had followed instances of violations.
While acknowledging the practical difficulties involved in monitoring a large region such as Delhi-NCR, the Court said that enforcement could not be treated as a formality. It suggested that action against traders and sellers, including prosecution and cancellation of licences where warranted, could help curb the circulation of prohibited firecrackers.
The judges also called for the matter to be addressed at a higher administrative level, stressing that the authorities must ensure that the enforcement framework prescribed by the Court operates effectively.
The Bench indicated that it was not inclined to impose a complete prohibition on firecrackers at this stage, taking into account the public sentiments associated with Diwali celebrations. However, it cautioned that continued failures in implementation could compel the Court to adopt a stricter position.
Justice Sundresh observed that the objective should be to preserve the spirit of the festival while addressing the public-health consequences of firecracker pollution. He also stressed the need for a sustained reduction in pollution levels rather than treating the issue as an annual exercise confined to the period around Diwali.
The Court underscored that religious and cultural practices must be considered alongside public health concerns and the constitutional rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
It observed that pollution affects not only those who burst firecrackers but also children, elderly persons, individuals with disabilities, patients and animals. The Bench called for a broader assessment of the consequences of firecracker use and effective measures to protect vulnerable sections of society.
Senior Advocate Uttara Babbar, appearing as amicus curiae, informed the Court that a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of its October 15, 2025 order had not been placed on record.
The earlier directions had contemplated safeguards such as designated sale points, patrolling teams, verification through QR codes, random sampling, seizure of prohibited products and air-quality monitoring.
The amicus submitted that the available material did not provide a complete picture of the enforcement measures undertaken or the environmental consequences of permitting the limited sale of green crackers.
She also pointed to gaps in air-quality monitoring during Diwali last year. According to her submissions, only nine of Delhi’s 39 continuous ambient air-quality monitoring stations recorded continuous readings during the intervening night of October 20 and 21, 2025. The absence of continuous data, particularly during periods of heightened pollution, made it difficult to establish the full extent of the deterioration in air quality.
Concerns were also raised about the authenticity of products marketed as green crackers. The amicus referred to instances in which conventional firecrackers were allegedly sold under green labels and QR codes were missing, non-functional or fraudulent.
She emphasised that green crackers were not pollution-free, notwithstanding claims that they could reduce particulate emissions compared with conventional firecrackers.
The amicus further referred to the Supreme Court’s April 3, 2025 order, which indicated that the earlier blanket prohibition could not be reconsidered unless the Court was satisfied that pollution from green crackers had been reduced to the bare minimum.
The Bench stressed that enforcement must be accompanied by a sustained public-awareness campaign. It suggested that restrictions and their public-health rationale should be communicated through television, newspapers, radio and other platforms.
Justice Sundresh also proposed involving prominent public figures, including celebrated sportspersons, to encourage people to celebrate Diwali without relying on polluting fireworks.
The Court discussed the possibility of directing educational institutions to sensitise children about the environmental and health consequences of firecrackers. Justice Sundresh observed that awareness among younger people could influence household behaviour and encourage families to adopt less polluting ways of celebrating the festival.
The Bench emphasised that the objective was not to discourage the celebration of Diwali but to encourage practices that would minimise harm to the environment and public health.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioner, urged the Court to retain the complete ban, contending that earlier directions regulating firecracker use had repeatedly been violated.
He submitted that the proceedings had been pending since 2015 and referred to alleged violations involving restrictions on barium-based firecrackers, QR-code labelling, transportation into Delhi-NCR and online sales.
The petitioner also relied on a report of the Central Bureau of Investigation concerning alleged violations by manufacturers and argued that conventional firecrackers continued to be sold as green crackers.
Sankaranarayanan contended that relaxing restrictions without first establishing whether the earlier safeguards had been implemented would undermine the purpose of the proceedings. He urged the Court to assess the consequences of effective enforcement before permitting any further relaxation.
The Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati acknowledged the increase in pollution associated with firecracker use and referred to air-quality data submitted by the Central Pollution Control Board. However, the amicus maintained that the material filed did not comprehensively address the enforcement requirements laid down by the Court.
The Bench sought a detailed account of the steps actually taken by the authorities and indicated that the matter required closer monitoring to ensure that its directions were not rendered ineffective through non-compliance.
The post Supreme Court seeks accountability from Delhi-NCR authorities over firecracker restrictions, flags lack of enforcement data appeared first on India Legal.