The Supreme Court on October 29 questioned the effectiveness of firecracker restrictions in Delhi-NCR, observing that its orders had become an “academic exercise” as violations continued more often than compliance. A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale questioned the Union and Delhi governments over the absence of comprehensive enforcement data following the temporary relaxation of restrictions during Diwali 2025.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the governments, acknowledged that pollution had increased during the relaxation and said an affidavit detailing enforcement measures would be filed. The court sought information on inspections, enforcement teams, seizures and prosecutions against violators, while suggesting public-awareness campaigns involving schools and prominent personalities, including cricketer Virat Kohli.
Although the bench said it was not inclined to impose a complete ban at that stage, it warned that continued non-compliance could prompt a stricter approach. The court reserved its order on the restrictions applicable to firecrackers during Diwali 2026.
Court Questions Compliance
During the hearing in the ongoing proceedings concerning air pollution, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the repeated failure to implement restrictions on firecrackers effectively. The bench questioned what concrete steps the authorities had taken after the court permitted the limited sale and use of green firecrackers in Delhi-NCR in October 2025. Justice Sundresh asked whether enforcement teams had been formed, inspections conducted, licensed sellers searched, prohibited products seized and cases registered against violators. He also sought details of the dates and locations of inspections and the findings recorded by officials.
The bench observed that judicial directions would serve little purpose without an effective enforcement mechanism. “Every year, we pass orders on the issue. For us, it has now become an academic exercise. Our orders are violated more often than they are followed,” the court remarked. It also questioned the absence of a comprehensive report assessing the implementation of its previous directions.
The judges asked the authorities to provide information about action taken against sellers of prohibited firecrackers, including Chinese firecrackers, and whether licences had been cancelled or prosecutions initiated. The court emphasised that the issue required coordinated action rather than repeated assurances. Justice Sundresh warned that the authorities should not compel the court to adopt a stricter position through continued failures to enforce its orders.
Government Explains Position
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Union and Delhi governments, acknowledged that pollution had increased during the period when firecracker restrictions were relaxed the previous year. She informed the bench that the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) had submitted air quality index (AQI) data, but comprehensive enforcement data had not been placed before the court. “We have pulled up our socks on all of these areas. We have to file an affidavit,” Bhati submitted, indicating that the authorities would provide further details.
The court-appointed amicus curiae, senior advocate Uttara Babbar, had highlighted the absence of a comprehensive assessment of the October 15, 2025, order, which allowed green firecrackers for a limited period on a trial basis. She questioned the request for further relaxation without a detailed evaluation of the previous year’s experience. Her submissions also raised concerns about gaps in air-quality monitoring and whether products sold as green firecrackers genuinely met approved standards.
Green firecrackers are designed to reduce emissions compared with conventional products, but they are not pollution-free. The court had previously prescribed safeguards, including designated sales locations, monitoring teams, QR-code verification, random sampling and the seizure of prohibited products. The latest hearing highlighted the need to establish whether these measures were implemented and whether they achieved their intended purpose.
The bench said it was not inclined to impose a complete ban at that stage, acknowledging the public’s sentiments surrounding Diwali. However, Justice Sundresh cautioned that the authorities should not push the court towards a stricter position. The judges also called for restrictions to be publicised through television, newspapers and other platforms.
They suggested involving schools and prominent personalities, including Virat Kohli, in awareness campaigns encouraging people to celebrate the festival without firecrackers. The court emphasised that children could play an important role in encouraging more environmentally responsible celebrations. It reserved its order on the restrictions for Diwali 2026 and indicated that the authorities would be required to submit an affidavit explaining enforcement measures and implementation challenges.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The Supreme Court’s observations highlight the gap between environmental regulations and their implementation. Protecting public health requires consistent enforcement, transparent reporting and greater awareness, alongside respect for Diwali’s cultural significance. Authorities must demonstrate that restrictions are working, while communities can help reduce pollution through responsible celebrations. How can India protect public health while preserving the joy and traditions of Diwali?
