‘This is shocking’: Bombay HC says Mumbai pollution surpassing Delhi, pulls up authorities

The Bombay High Court raised the alarm after reports indicated that Mumbai’s pollution had surpassed Delhi’s. Justice Kulkarni said Mumbai’s air quality was shocking and questioned how officials could remain unconcerned while citizens faced an emergency. The court’s concern covered both air and noise pollution.

The bench criticized the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, and the police. It said they had failed to implement directions on sound systems, firecrackers, and public warnings. The court also noted that Mumbai’s visibility had fallen below 500 metres on Tuesday.

The case was a suo motu Public Interest Litigation on pollution. The court said authorities had not publicised its October 15 ban on firecrackers in public places. It also flagged missing permissions for procession music systems and repeated violations of prescribed decibel limits. Stronger enforcement and timely public communication were therefore central to its criticism.

The Air Quality Index is a numerical system that summarizes the level of major air pollutants. It turns complex measurements into a scale that helps people understand health risk quickly. Higher numbers mean dirtier air and greater potential harm. AQI categories can differ slightly between countries and monitoring systems.

On commonly used AQI scales, readings from 151 to 200 are classed as unhealthy. People with asthma, heart or lung disease, older adults, and children may be affected more quickly. Even healthy people can experience irritation or breathing discomfort during prolonged exposure. Outdoor activity may become harder as pollution rises.

The article reports that Mumbai’s AQI stayed between 150 and 200 over the past week, according to aqi.in. That places the city near or within the unhealthy range. The reading makes the court’s concern important because pollution can affect large numbers of residents, especially during stagnant weather or pollution spikes.

Mumbai’s recent air pollution was high enough to trigger serious concern from the Bombay High Court. The article reports that the city’s AQI remained between 150 and 200 during the previous week, according to aqi.in. That range reaches the unhealthy category on commonly used AQI scales.

The bench also flagged reports that Mumbai had surpassed Delhi in pollution indexes. Visibility in Mumbai fell below 500 metres on Tuesday, giving a concrete sign of poor atmospheric conditions. The court linked these conditions to wider failures in controlling air and noise pollution.

Delhi was also experiencing a pollution increase. Hour-by-hour readings rose sharply on Tuesday evening as Dussehra effigies were burned. The article warns that pollution could rise further as Diwali approaches, particularly if firecrackers are permitted more widely. The comparison shows that both cities face major pollution pressures, although the article does not provide identical AQI figures for each city.

The court focused on activities that can create sudden pollution spikes or break existing controls. These included firecrackers burned on busy public streets and music systems used during processions without prior permission. It also criticized the absence of undertakings promising compliance with prescribed decibel limits.

Firecrackers release smoke and fine particles into the air, increasing pollution and potentially reducing visibility. Burning them in crowded streets places emissions close to pedestrians and nearby homes. Large celebrations can create concentrated pollution when weather conditions prevent pollutants from dispersing quickly. Music systems do not usually worsen air pollution directly, but excessive volume creates noise pollution and can disturb residents.

The court said routine violations of its orders were continuing. It also noted that authorities had not properly informed citizens about restrictions, including the October 15 ban on firecrackers in public places. Better permissions, monitoring, public notices, and enforcement could reduce these festival-related pollution pressures.

Sea breezes can move air across a coastal city, while open spaces give pollutants more room to disperse. That is why Justice Kulkarni questioned Mumbai’s poor air quality despite its coastline and open areas. The court said the city was failing to capitalise on these geographical advantages and urged authorities to ensure clearer skies.

These features are helpful but not automatically sufficient. Large emissions from traffic, construction, industry, dust, fires, and celebrations can overwhelm natural ventilation. Weak winds, temperature patterns, or buildings that interrupt airflow can also keep pollution near the ground. These mechanisms are established air-quality principles; the article does not identify which one specifically caused Mumbai’s conditions.

The court’s point was therefore about both geography and governance. Natural air movement may reduce pollution, but it cannot replace controls on emissions. The reported AQI of 150 to 200 and visibility below 500 metres show that enforcement and timely action remain necessary even in a coastal city.

The BMC, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, and police are responsible for putting pollution rules into practice. Their duties include enforcing court directions, checking procession music systems, controlling firecrackers in public places, and acting when sound or air pollution rules are broken. They also share responsibility for protecting residents during festivals.

The court specifically said prior permission was required for music systems used in processions, along with undertakings to follow decibel limits. It also criticized the failure to control firecrackers on busy public streets. The BMC and MPCB were told to publicise the October 15 firecracker ban through newspapers, electronic and social media, and other platforms.

The bench said neither authority had completed that public-information task. It described implementation as slow and noted that basic preliminary requirements remained unfinished. The wider implication is clear: rules need visible communication, monitoring, and timely enforcement. Without all three, court orders may exist on paper while violations continue in public places.

PM2.5 means fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometres or less. These particles can come from combustion, including vehicle exhaust, fires, industrial activity, and firecrackers. Their tiny size allows them to remain suspended in air and travel deep into the respiratory system. The article does not specifically mention PM2.5, so this explanation uses established scientific knowledge.

Fine particles scatter and absorb light, creating haze and reducing how far people can see. That helps explain why heavy particulate pollution can accompany visibility below 500 metres, although the article does not identify the exact pollutant responsible. PM2.5 exposure can irritate airways and worsen asthma. Longer or heavier exposure is also associated with heart and lung disease risks.

Mumbai’s reported AQI of 150 to 200 indicates a serious pollution period. Firecrackers and burning materials can add fine particles, especially when emissions accumulate. Limiting these sources, enforcing restrictions, and warning residents can reduce exposure while broader air-quality controls address other emissions.