NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday took up the issue concerning the ban on firecrackers in Delhi-NCR and agreed to hear the matter again on Friday (October 10), just ahead of Diwali.
The Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai was informed that the matter involved the continued restrictions on the sale and use of firecrackers in the National Capital Region.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the central government, requested that the case be listed for another day.
Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, representing manufacturers, urged the Bench to fix the hearing for Friday, noting that Diwali is next week. “I request for Friday, because there is Diwali next week,” Singh submitted.
The Chief Justice agreed and posted the matter for hearing on Friday, i.e. October 10.
Previously, in September, the Supreme Court had permitted certified manufacturers of green crackers; those approved by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) and the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO), to produce such crackers in Delhi-NCR, on the condition that they would not be sold within the region.
The Central government had also been directed to consult all stakeholders, including the Delhi government, manufacturers, and sellers, and present before court a balanced policy on the next hearing.
With a view to balance economic interests with public health, the bench had said that an outright ban would lead to unintended consequences.
Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, appearing for manufacturers, had told the Bench that they would adhere to stringent environmental and safety norms, as per the 2018 decision in Arjun Gopal judgment. Thus, while allowing manufacture, the bench has upheld the ban on sale in Delhi-NCR.
Recently, the Apex Court had suggested a nationwide ban on firecrackers ahead of Diwali and not just the National Capital Region. “If firecrackers are to be banned, they should be banned throughout the country..”, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai remarked while hearing the MC Mehta case.
