“We are not against festivals but celebrations cannot be at cost of life”: Supreme Court in firecrackers ban case

Read Time: 08 minutes

The Supreme Court on Thursday said it is not against celebration of festivals but celebrations cannot be carried out at the cost of people’s lives.

The application has sought a ban on the sale and purchase of firecrackers, directions to the States to implement the order, direction holding District Magistrate personally responsible for violation of the orders, and banning the manufacturers selling fake green firecrackers.

However, the bench said that "we are not against any community we want full implementation of orders. We are not against the festivals but we cannot play with the right to life of others."

Court will hear the issue of stubble burning after Diwali vacation while hearing the application in a long-pending case related to the environmental issues, over non-implementation of orders by firecracker manufacturers banning the use of barium.

A divisional bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna said, "firecracker is a temporary issue," adding that the court will hear the issue of stubble burning after Diwali. "It is an important issue," the court added while referring to stubble burning.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that the manufacturers have submitted NEERI Certificates while seeking an exception. Whereas, only 4/5 players have PESO Certification.

Sankaranarayanan further added that the manufacturers have no explanation with regards to the use of barium rather they are trying to uplift the ban on barium.

Earlier, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the TAMILNADU FIREWORKS AND AMORCES MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (TANFAMA) in the cracker pollution case, informed the court that over 5 lakh families in Sivakasi are involved in the cracker industry. He further urged the court to strike a balance and provide safeguards for the industry.

 Background

A bench had issued notice to firecracker manufacturers to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them for using banned chemicals such as barium and barium salt.

The bench issued the notice pursuant to the receipt of a preliminary report by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). On perusal of the report, the bench remarked that certain manufacturers have not only used barium but also have procured huge quantities of it. Court further remarked that the manufacturers were in violation of Explosive Substance Act,1884, and of the previous orders of the Supreme Court banning the use of barium.

The bench after consulting with Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General and senior advocate Gopal Shankarnarayanan, who was representing the petitioners in the matter, directed the CBI to furnish a copy of the report to the manufacturers by tomorrow (30.09.2021). The manufacturers have been permitted to file their response to report, if any,

The bench further remarked that the credibility of the lab report cannot be called into question as they were issued by reputed laboratories, however the manufacturers are being granted time to reply in the interest of natural justice.

It it to be noted that the bench on hearing this plea yesterday noted"We'll have to set up a liability on someone, otherwise this will not stop. It is a problem in our country, we have laws but they are not implemented, we want that our orders must be implemented in true spirit.”

The application has been filed in a pending public interest litigation (PIL) over the issue of pollution caused due to firecrackers and subsequent alarming degradation in the air quality.

Earlier, in March 2020 the court had noted that manufacturers are using the same chemicals which have been banned by the court under various orders. In response to this, the court had earlier directed the Joint Director (CBI), Chennai to investigate into this and file a detailed report.

The ASG, during the course of the hearing yesterday submitted that the CBI had completed investigations and was ready with the report. The report was accordingly filed before the bench in a sealed envelope today.

Case Title: Arjun Gopal and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Picture Credits: DNA