In a landmark judgment reinforcing India’s constitutional commitment to environmental protection, the Supreme Court of India, in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 13029 of 1985), ruled that public health and environmental concerns must prevail over commercial gains and traditional festivities.
The Court, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, balanced the competing claims of livelihood, religious expression, and the right to a clean environment while deciding whether the ban on firecrackers in the National Capital Region (NCR) should continue.
This decision forms part of a long chain of judicial interventions in India’s struggle against air pollution, particularly the smog-laden months around Diwali. The Court emphasised that while bursting firecrackers is deeply embedded in India’s cultural and religious ethos, no tradition can justify inflicting environmental and health damage.
Background and Context
The case stems from decades-long litigation initiated by environmental crusader M.C. Mehta. The Supreme Court, through this and related cases like Arjun Gopal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., has repeatedly dealt with the severe pollution caused by firecracker use.
After years of monitoring and several interim orders, the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) imposed a complete ban on firecrackers in October 2024 to combat the annual deterioration of air quality during the festival season. The Court had upheld this ban in December 2024, directing similar restrictions in neighbouring states of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan.
However, the firecracker industry, including manufacturers, traders, and workers, petitioned for relaxation, arguing that the advent of “green crackers”—a cleaner alternative developed by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI)—justified reconsideration.
Issues Before the Court
- Whether the ban on firecrackers in Delhi-NCR should continue despite the introduction of “green crackers.”
- How to balance economic interests and cultural traditions with the right to health and clean environment under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether sufficient safeguards and scientific verification mechanisms exist to permit limited use of low-emission firecrackers.
Arguments Presented
Petitioners (Firecracker Industry)
- Represented by Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar, the industry argued that the total ban devastated the livelihoods of thousands of workers.
- Claimed that green crackers emit up to 80% less pollution and could be safely allowed under strict regulation.
- Sought limited relaxation during Diwali and other festivals to prevent the smuggling of conventional, more harmful crackers.
Union of India and GNCTD
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and ASG Aishwarya Bhati supported conditional relaxation, emphasising strict monitoring through NEERI and PESO (Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation).
- Proposed detailed guidelines, including limited time slots, sales only through licensed traders, and a prohibition on e-commerce sales.
Amicus Curiae
- Advocate Uttara Babar, acting as amicus curiae, urged caution, warning that any relaxation might reverse hard-won environmental gains.
- Highlighted the health dangers of PM2.5 emissions, especially for children, the elderly, and those with respiratory ailments.
- Suggested permitting only firecrackers with at least 50% reduced emissions as a “test case” and recommended comprehensive air, water, and soil monitoring around Diwali 2025.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
1. Right to Health Prevails Over Commerce and Culture
The Bench reaffirmed that economic activity and tradition cannot supersede public health. While the Court acknowledged the role of firecrackers in Indian festivities, it stressed that “commercial considerations and the festive spirit should take a back seat when it concerns the environment and health.”
2. Evolution of Judicial Oversight
The Court recalled its earlier rulings in Arjun Gopal (2017, 2018), where PM2.5 levels in Delhi soared nearly 29 times above WHO standards post-Diwali. At that time, the Court had initiated a phased approach—reducing licences, prohibiting imports, and directing scientific studies.
3. Scientific Development of Green Crackers
NEERI’s findings showed that green crackers can reduce particulate emissions by 30–80%. These use zeolites and boron-based reagents to suppress dust and eliminate barium, one of the most toxic pollutants previously used. However, the widespread misuse of QR codes and the proliferation of fake products made enforcement challenging.
4. Need for Harmonisation
The Court sought to harmonise the two litigation streams—M.C. Mehta and Arjun Gopal—and evolve a unified regulatory regime ensuring both environmental integrity and limited economic survival for the industry.
5. Test-Based Relaxation Approach
Acknowledging the improved technology but retaining environmental concerns, the Court decided on a “test case” relaxation, permitting controlled sale and use of green crackers for a short window during Diwali 2025.
Key Directions of the Supreme Court
The Court’s directions strike a balance between precaution and pragmatism:
Limited Sale Period: Green crackers (approved by NEERI) may be sold only from 18–20 October 2025.
Designated Sale Points: Sales permitted only at locations identified by District Collectors and Police, with wide public notice.
Licensed Traders Only: Sales confined to traders holding valid PESO licences and NEERI registration.
Strict Timings for Use: Firecrackers may be used 6:00–7:00 AM and 8:00–10:00 PM on Diwali and the preceding day.
No E-Commerce Sales: Online sales via Flipkart, Amazon, etc., are completely banned.
Ban on Harmful Chemicals: Firecrackers containing barium, lithium, arsenic, antimony, lead, and mercury are prohibited.
No “Laris” or Series Firecrackers: Manufacturing and sale of joined firecrackers banned.
Monitoring and Enforcement:
- PESO, NEERI, and Pollution Control Boards to test samples and conduct surprise inspections.
- Violators’ licences to be suspended and products confiscated.
Environmental Monitoring: CPCB and SPCBs to monitor air quality, soil, and water from 14–25 October 2025 and submit daily AQI reports.
Temporary Nature: The relaxation is only a test case, subject to future assessment based on scientific data.
Balancing Livelihood and Environmental Protection
The Court acknowledged the genuine economic hardship faced by the firecracker industry, particularly in Sivakasi, Tamil Nadu, a hub employing over 300,000 workers. However, it stressed that livelihood cannot be pursued at the cost of life itself.
The judgment also reflects a nuanced understanding of federal dynamics, noting that 70% of Haryana’s districts fall within NCR and are affected by the ban, calling for coordinated regional action.
Public Health and Environmental Justice
The decision builds upon India’s evolving environmental jurisprudence under Article 21, linking the right to life with the right to breathe clean air. The Court’s approach is grounded in the precautionary principle, recognising that once pollutants enter the atmosphere, their impact persists for years.
By mandating data-driven assessment by CPCB, NEERI, and CAQM (Commission for Air Quality Management), the Court ensured that future policy decisions will be based on empirical evidence rather than assumptions.
Significance of the Judgment
- Reaffirmation of Environmental Priority: The Court reiterated that traditions and economic interests cannot override environmental imperatives.
- Institutional Accountability: NEERI, PESO, and Pollution Control Boards are now jointly accountable for ensuring compliance and transparency.
- Scientific Decision-Making: Establishes a precedent for technology-based environmental regulation through verified “green” innovations.
- Public Awareness: Encourages educational campaigns and citizen reporting apps like Green Delhi and Sameer.
- Sustainable Festivities: Promotes the idea that cultural celebrations can coexist with ecological consciousness.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s October 15, 2025, order in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India marks another milestone in India’s environmental jurisprudence. It reiterates that profit and tradition must yield to the right to life and health.
By adopting a measured, test-based approach, the Court has allowed limited economic reprieve to the firecracker industry while upholding its constitutional duty to safeguard the environment. The ruling serves as a reminder that the sound of celebration must never drown out the call for clean air.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams