Supreme Court allows bursting of green firecrackers in Delhi on November 7-8; restores ban thereafter

The Supreme Court created a narrow, temporary exception to Delhi-NCR’s firecracker ban. It allowed certified green firecrackers to be sold and burst on November 7 and 8, ahead of and during Diwali celebrations. The permission did not cover conventional firecrackers or unrestricted use.

The permitted hours were tightly fixed. People could burst approved green firecrackers from 6am to 7am and again from 8pm to 10pm on each of those two days. Manufacturers, sellers and consumers therefore had to follow both the product rules and the time limits.

The relaxation ended after November 8. The Court ordered that a complete ban on firecrackers would return from November 9. It said the limited approach recognised Diwali’s significance while attempting to control pollution through certification, designated sales points, sealed boxes and monitoring.

Green firecrackers are approved firecracker products subject to certification and testing requirements. The article distinguishes them from conventional firecrackers, whose sale and use remained prohibited. Their purpose is to offer a more controlled alternative during the temporary relaxation, although the article does not provide exact emission levels or a detailed chemical definition.

The Court required manufacturers to hold valid certifications from CSIR-NEERI and PESO. Only products listed on the CSIR-NEERI website could be manufactured or sold. Each box also needed a product-specific QR code, allowing consumers to check whether the product was genuine.

This distinction mattered because the Court found that conventional crackers were being sold illegally under the guise of green crackers. Sealed boxes, certification, website listings and QR codes were intended to prevent mixing and help enforcement. The article does not state the precise technical difference in emissions.

The Court’s relaxation was exceptionally narrow. It covered only November 7 and 8, giving people two permitted days. On each day, bursting was allowed during two one-hour windows: 6am to 7am and 8pm to 10pm. Together, that amounted to four permitted hours per day.

The order also limited the products and sales system. Only certified green firecrackers could be used, and sales were restricted to locations identified by district collectors and commissioners in consultation with district police chiefs. Online sales were prohibited, and boxes had to remain sealed.

The supplied article does not state a specific distance from hospitals, schools, religious places or other sensitive locations where bursting was prohibited. It also does not provide a separate map or distance rule. Therefore, the exact sensitive-place buffer cannot be determined from this text, though the order clearly relied on designated locations and official monitoring.

After November 8, the Supreme Court restored a complete ban on firecrackers. The temporary permission therefore did not create a continuing right to manufacture, sell or burst even certified green products. Authorities were expected to enforce the ban and monitor activity beyond the festive period.

Manufacturers needed valid CSIR-NEERI and PESO certifications, while sellers could operate only under the specified licensing and location conditions. Traders whose cancelled licences were temporarily restored between November 4 and 6 could lose those licences immediately if they violated the Court’s conditions. Sealed packaging, website listings and QR codes supported enforcement.

The article does not state specific penalties for individual users who violated the timing rules or used conventional crackers. It does state that conventional firecrackers remained prohibited and that the complete ban returned on November 9. The Court also called for better coordination and sustained monitoring after the festival.

The Court chose temporary regulation because the earlier complete ban had produced weak results. It said air quality had not significantly improved, while illegal sales and use of conventional firecrackers continued. The bench therefore focused on controlling manufacture, storage, sale and bursting instead of relying only on prohibition.

The Court identified a practical enforcement problem. Conventional crackers were reportedly being sold under the label of green crackers. A complete ban also encouraged an illegal market, while preventing consumers from buying legitimate certified products. The temporary system used approved manufacturers, sealed boxes, designated sellers and QR codes.

The bench also said it lacked adequate data to decide whether a complete ban was the best answer to pollution caused by firecrackers. It stressed that implementation had failed and called for coordination among authorities and monitoring that continued beyond the festive season. The approach balanced control with Diwali’s recognised significance.

The Court treated religious freedom and environmental protection as connected constitutional concerns. Article 25 protects the freedom to practise, profess and propagate religion, but that freedom is subject to public order, morality, health and other fundamental rights. It therefore could not automatically justify unrestricted firecracker use.

The bench linked Article 21’s right to life with a healthy and pollution-free environment. It said an individual’s religious practice, even when associated with tradition, could not override that protection. The Court also noted that all parties agreed firecrackers contributed significantly to pollution in Delhi-NCR.

At the same time, the Court acknowledged Diwali’s religious, social, psychological and emotional importance. Rather than permit unlimited bursting or maintain an immediately permanent ban, it allowed certified green crackers during tightly controlled hours on two days. The Court said environmental degradation harming living beings would defeat the purpose of the celebrations.

Firecrackers worsen air pollution because their bursting releases polluting material into the environment. The article gives the Court’s broad finding that firecrackers contribute significantly to pollution in Delhi-NCR, but it does not identify particular pollutants or explain the chemistry in detail. That specific mechanism is therefore not established by this text.

The article does explain why a ban may fail in practice. Conventional crackers continued to be sold and used illegally, sometimes under the guise of green crackers. Restrictions were repeatedly violated, and the earlier complete ban did not significantly improve air quality. Pollution can therefore remain severe when prohibited products still enter the market and are burst.

The Court said the central weakness was implementation. It called for better coordination among stakeholders and sustained monitoring beyond the festive season. Certification, sealed boxes, QR codes, designated sellers and time limits were intended to make the limited relaxation easier to police.