The Supreme Court on Monday called for a balanced approach to regulating firecrackers in Delhi-NCR, observing that public health concerns must be addressed without hurting religious sentiments.

The Court indicated that it was not inclined to impose a blanket ban on firecrackers and instead emphasised public awareness and the voluntary adoption of safer practices.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made the observations while hearing suo motu proceedings concerning air pollution in Delhi-NCR, including firecracker use, stubble burning and solid waste management.

“We will not hurt religious sentiments, but at the same time, people should themselves come forward and opt for it. The whole exercise should involve a balancing approach. If we do that, society itself becomes awakened and people come forward. If the citizenry is concerned and civil society is aware of these things, I think that will be the best approach,” the CJI observed.

During the hearing, Justice Bagchi questioned the religious basis for bursting firecrackers after the amicus curiae highlighted the health hazards associated with air pollution and the practical difficulties in enforcing restrictions.

“What is religious about bursting of crackers?” Justice Bagchi asked.

Responding to the Court's observations, the amicus submitted that any restrictions would require balancing public health concerns with religious sentiments. He further remarked, “Gods would be aghast if they knew that children were suffering and getting sick in their name.”

The amicus also drew attention to the adverse effects of air pollution on children, elderly persons and those who are infirm. However, he expressed doubts about the effectiveness of restrictions without proper enforcement.

“It sounds really nice in Court, that it is only two hours or one hour. But the Court also knows that it is not implemented. It is impossible for police officers to be in every street all the time. It will not be implemented. These arguments do not work on the ground,” he submitted.

The amicus suggested that the issue be referred to the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), which could examine the available material and medical concerns before recommending appropriate measures.

CJI Surya Kant cautioned that the Court should avoid imposing restrictions unless they could be effectively implemented.

“We have to be extremely careful in passing an order unless we are in a position to make it manageable and enforceable,” he said.

The CJI observed that restrictive directions could be perceived as coercive and stressed the need for a practical approach that encouraged voluntary compliance.

“The only problem, and we are repeating this, is that the moment you pass an order, a restrictive order, people take it as if it is a kind of coercive action. It is a human reaction. We should be very practical and pragmatic in these things,” he said.

Emphasising public awareness, the CJI suggested that people be encouraged to celebrate while limiting firecracker use to specified hours, as had been done previously.

He also called for educating the public about the relative harmfulness of different varieties of firecrackers, suggesting that highly polluting products could be restricted while less harmful alternatives were permitted.

“We have to make people wiser, bring awareness and tell them which firecrackers are harmful and which are less harmful. We should promote that kind of culture and persuade people to return to our original culture, where there were only sparklers and the lighting of lamps,” he observed.

The CJI further suggested publishing awareness material to encourage people to minimise firecracker use and restrict celebrations to designated hours to reduce noise and air pollution.

The bench also considered measures to tackle stubble burning ahead of the upcoming pollution season.

Justice Bagchi referred to proposals by states to purchase crop residue and explore its commercial utilisation. CJI Surya Kant observed that crop residue had become commercially viable and could provide financial benefits to farmers, stressing the need to develop a market for it.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the Court that the government had policies covering both in-situ and ex-situ management of crop residue.

She submitted that the Union Government would file a detailed affidavit outlining the steps taken to address the problem. The amicus also noted that the government had introduced several schemes and financial incentives to tackle stubble burning.

Bhati assured the bench that an updated status report would be placed on record, detailing the measures already implemented, preventive steps undertaken and future plans to combat air pollution.

The matter will be heard next on October 15.