The Supreme Court of India on 29 October 2026 resumed hearing a long-pending plea seeking restrictions on firecrackers in Delhi-NCR, with a bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and P.B. Varale examining health impacts, compliance failures and possible limited relaxation.
The court had earlier directed the Central Pollution Control Board to explore whether partial easing for certain types of crackers, particularly with regard to noise levels, could be considered. During the hearing, the amicus curiae highlighted the severe effects of particulate matter and toxic residues released by fireworks. These fine particles enter the bloodstream and organs, contributing to reduced life expectancy, respiratory illness, cardiovascular problems and even developmental issues in children. Delhi-NCR residents were said to lose nearly 4.7 years of life expectancy due to persistently high pollution levels.
Contrasting Views
Senior advocates presented sharply contrasting views. One side argued for a firm ban, pointing to repeated violations of earlier court orders, the continued use of banned substances such as barium, child labour in the industry, and the long-lasting presence of PM2.5 in the air. Complete bans had never been properly tested, they contended. Opposing counsel maintained that absolute prohibition had only fuelled black markets and illegal Chinese products. They advocated regulated “green crackers” developed with CSIR-NEERI technology, which claim 30–80% lower particulate emissions, along with stricter licensing, QR-code tracking and transparent manufacturer lists.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union, CAQM and Delhi government, outlined seasonal pollution-control measures including construction bans and vehicle restrictions starting 1 November. The court, however, expressed frustration at the lack of detailed on-ground compliance data. “There is no point passing orders unless you give effect to them,” Justice Sundresh observed, warning that non-enforcement reduced judicial directions to a “mockery.”
While acknowledging public festive sentiments, the bench indicated it was not inclined to impose a total ban that could encourage illegality. Instead, it called for tighter regulation, better public awareness and genuine administrative action to protect health without completely curtailing celebrations. The barium issue was deferred for further consultation.
