ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

                             [2017] 10 S.C.R. 86


A                     ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS
                                      v.
                     UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
                          (I. A. No. 92862 of2017)
B                                     IN
                    (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 728 of2015)
                            OCTOBER 09, 2017
           [A. K. SIKRI, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
C                     ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
           Pollution: Air pollution - Bursting of crackers/fireworks in
    Delhi and NCR - Suspension of permanent licenses of licence
    holders of.fireworks/fire crackers by order dated Il. ll.2016 - Said
    order lifted for the time being alongwith other directions by order
D   dated 12.09.2017 - Interim applications wherein petitioners seeking
    restoration of the order of complete suspension of licences and on
    the other hand the manufacturers, traders and licence holders of
    the fireworks/fire crackers seeking that the rel<uation given in the
    impugned order to be further liberalised - Held: Order suspending
    the licences to be given one chance to test itself in order to find out
E
    as to whether there would be positive effect of this suspension,
    particularly during Diwali period - Effect of the order dated
    12.09.2017 would not be given during this Diwali, thus, it is made
    effective only from 0I.ll.2017 - Temporary licences issued by police
    are suspended so that there is no further sale of the crackers in
F   Delhi and NCR - Further orders to be passed 011 assessing the
    situation that would emerge after this Diwali season.
          Disposing of the applications, the Court
         HELD: 1.1 The judgment dated September 12, 2017
  accepted the problem of air pollution. It mentioned that bursting
G of fire crackers is not the only cause for alarming air pollution in
  Delhi and NCR, but it is also acknowledged that it is one of the
  major causes. It is also recorded in the judgment that on bursting
  of these crackers during Diwali in 2016, the air quality had sharply
  deteriorated. Notwithstanding the same, the Court deemed it
H proper to adopt graded approach in reducing and gradually
                                    86
   ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND                         87
                     OTHERS

eliminating of air pollution in Delhi and in NCR caused by bursting     A
of fire crackers. Because of this reason, rigours of order dated
November 11, 2016 are relaxed to the extent indicated in the
said order. In such a scenario, question of further relaxation, as
pleaded by the manufacturers and licence holders does not arise.
The studies indicate the air quality standards in Delhi and NCR         B
which generally prevail throughout the year. It cannot be denied
that there are various other factors which contribute to the air
pollution in Delhi and NCR. There is a need to tackle those factors
as well. However, what is the immediate impact of use of fireworks
and fire crackers bursting during Diwali is an altogether different
aspect. To this effect, nothing relevant is produced. On the            C
contrary, there is direct evidence of deterioration of air quality at
alarming levels, which happens every year. Burning of these fire
crackers during Diwali in 2016 had shot up pm levels by three
times, making Delhi the worst city in the world, insofar as air
pollution is concerned. Direct and immediate cause thereof was          D
burning of crackers during Diwali. Every year before Diwali there
are attempts on the part of the Government (Ministry of
Environment, Government of India as well as Delhi Government),
Media, NGOs and various other groups to create awareness in
the general public about the ill-effects of bursting of these
crackers. Campaigns are held in the schools wherein children            E
are discouraged to have fireworks. Thus, there is virtually a
consensus in the society that crackers should not be burnt during
Diwali, which can be celebrated with equal fervour by various
other means as well. Irony is that when causes are brought in the
Court, there is resistance from certain quarters. It cannot be
                                                                        F
denied that there are adequate statutory provisions, aid whereof
can be taken to ban the sale of these crackers. It is one of the
functions of the Judges, in a democracy, to bridge the gap between
law and the society. Here, fortunately, there is no such gap and
the Court is only become facilitator in invoking the law to fulfill
the need of the society [Para 10] [99-B-H; 100-A-D]                     G
      1.2 In the judgment dated September 12, 2017 the Court
has chosen to adopt graded approach. However, at that time it
was not within the knowledge of the petitioners as well as the
Court that the CPCB had taken a stand, nearly 20 year;, ago, that
Sulphur in fireworks should not be permitted as Sulphur on H
88           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2017] IO S.C.R.



A  combustion produces Sulphur Dioxide and the same is extremely
   harmful to health. The CPCB has in the said proceedings stated
  Huit l.ictwecn 9:00 pm to midnight on Diwali day the levels of
   Sulphur Dioxide content in the air is dangerously high. Moreover,
  all the above authorities were also unanimous in their view that
  crackers should only be burst in designated places. Also the CPCB
B
  had specifically stated that joined crackers should be banned by
  way of their letter dated November 04, 1996 to the Commissioner
  of Police. Neither the CPCB nor the Delhi Police divulged this
  fact to this Court. Insofar as this plea is concerned, except that
  similar attempt made in proceeding before Delhi High Court 20
c years' ago, no fresh material has been brought on record. The
  stand taken by the CPCB at that time was the same which was
  taken before this Court when Orders dated November 11, 2016
  or September 12, 2017 were passed. CPCB, therefore, has been
  consistent in its stand. This was stressed by the counsel for CPCB
  before this Court as well, who. even took the decision of
0
  supporting the ban. Therefore, in substance, it is not the new
  material which is brought. On the contrary, the main objective
  behind this move, by making reference to the said proceedings
  in Delhi High Court and in the process filing one particular
  annexure which was the report submitted at that time to the
E Court, was an attempt to take the matter away from a particular
  Bench. This is not a healthy practice. This Court denounces the
  same and place on record the strongest condemnation. The matter
  is left at that simply because insofar as instant petition is
  concerned it has raised a very important public cause and it needs
  serious and adequate consideration. [Para 13] [100-H; 101-A-G]
F
        1.3 The order suspending the licences should be given one
  chance to test itself in order to find out as to whether there would
  be positive effect of this suspension, particularly during Diwali
  period. Insofar as adverse effects of burning of crackers during
  Diwali are concerned, those have been witnessed year after year.
G The air quality deteriorates abysmally and alarmingly and the city
  chokes thereby. It leads to closing the schools and the authorities
  are compelled to take various measures on emergent basis, when
  faced with "health emergency" situation. This very situation had
  occurred on the very next morning after Diwali in the year 2016.
H It resulted in passing the order dated November 11, 2016. This
    ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND                        89
                      OTHERS

  order prevailed during the year but the impact and effect of this A
  order remains to be tested on Diwali days. Going by these
  considerations, the judgment dated September 12, 2017 passed
  by this Court should be made effective only from November 01,
  2017. To put it clearly, though this Court is not modifying the
  various directions contained in the Orders dated September 12, B
  2017, the effect of that order would not be given during this Diwali
  and, therefore, it is made effective only from November 01, 2017.
  This Court is conscious of the fact that after the said order was
  passed, the police may have issued temporary licences .
. Accordingly, those are suspended forthwith so that there is no
  further sale of the crackers in Delhi and NCR. Further orders in C
  this behalf can be passed on assessing the situation that would
  emerge after this Diwali season. [Para 14] [102-D-H; 103-A]
       CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I. A. NO. 92862 of 2017
 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 728 of2015
       Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia.                    D
                                WITH
        I.A. Nos. 94427, 94429, 95202, 96202 and 96755 of2017 in Writ
 Petition (Civil) No. 728 of2015.
        Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Ms. Pooja
 Dhar, Ms. Amit Bhandari, Shrutanjaya Bhardwaj, Ms. Veeru Mahuli,       E
 Ad vs. for the Appellant.
       Ms. Pinky Anand,ASG,Anil Gover,AAG, C.A. Sundararn, Neeraj
 K. Kaul, Sr. Advs., Ms. Rohini Musa, D. R. Raghunath, R.K. Rathod,
Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Ritesh Kumar, Raj Bhadur
Yadav, Sumit Teterwal, Amrish Kumar, Ms. Anil Katiyar, B. Krishna F
Prasad, Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Ms. Garima Bajaj, Ms. Chanan Panwani,
Aakash Larnba, Varun Mathur, Ms. Binu Tam ta, Ms. Vimla Sinha, Pankaj
Pandey, Vibhu Shankar Mishra, B. V. Bairam Das, Vijay Panjwani, Amit
Sharma, WA. Quadri, D. N. Goberdun, Ajay Sharma, Amrish Sharma,
G. S. Makker, Mis. Corporate Law Group, Ms. Sarla Chandra,
Ms. Charuwali Khanna, Chi rag M. Shroff, Ms. Neha, M. A. Chinnasamy, G
Ms. C. Rubavathi, P. Raja Ram, V. Senthil Kumar, V. D. Khanna, Anish
R. Shah, Sachin Mittal, S. Kothari, Rajiv R., Pawan Sharma, Yoginder
Handoo, Kailash Chand, Debojit Barkakati, M. Balashivudu, Satish
Kumar, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Ashok Kumar Gupta II, Advs. for the
Respondents.                                                          H
90            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017110 S.C.R.


A          Applicant-in-person.
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
          A. K. SIKRI, J. l. Arjun Gopal and others (hereinafter referred
  to as the petitioners) have filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 728 of 2015
  seeking wide ranging reliefs against the use of fireworks (including fire
B crackers), prevention of harmful crop burning, dumping of malba and
  other further steps towards environmental purity. Along with this, the
  petitioners had also filed a miscellaneous application seeking interim relief,
  which was numbered as IA No.4. The petitioners had pressed for interim
  relief in respect of fireworks, drawing the attention of this Court to the
c emergent situation that has resulted in worsening the air quality standards
  in Delhi and National Capital Region (NCR) because of extensive use
  of fireworks, including fire crackers during Diwali last year. It was pointed
  out that onset of winter itself deteriorates air quality in this region and it
  gets aggravated because of festival/marriage season that occurs during
  these very months. Taking note of the aforesaid factors, particularly
D impact of fireworks on the ambient air and unhealthy effects thereof
   which had created unprecedented situation in Delhi, with air pollution
  going up at alarming levels and making it the most polluted city in the
   world. Air pollution had gone up to 29 times above, the World Health
  Organisation (WHO) standards. In the aforesaid scenario, this Court
E deemed it proper to pass certain directions vi de its order dated November
   11, 2016 in IA No.4. Snapping the supply chain of fireworks was
   considered to be the more practical way of addressing the menace instead
   of banning the burning the crackers by individuals as it would have been
   difficult to monitor and enforce the burning of the crackers by the
   citizenry.
F
         2. In paragraph 18 of the Order dated November 11, 2016 it was
  clarified that much was left to be heard, discussed and said about the
  rival claims and contentions. However, the Court hastened to add that
  harmful effects of fireworks on the ambient air and the lungs, eyes and
  ears of people was also an acknowledged fact, as can be seen from the
G following portion of the said paragraph:
             "18. We are aware that we are only issuing interim directions,
             and much is left to be heard, discussed and said about the rival
             claims and contentions. What is however indisputable is that the
             harmful effects of fireworks on the ambient air 11n<l the lungs,
H            eyes and ears of people. What is also obvious is the extreme
    ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND                                  91
                OTHERS [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

        nuisance, noise the fireworks cause to citizens particularly the          A
        ailing and the aged. Therefore, though much can be argued as
        always about the significance and even joy of bursting fireworks,
        but at the same time (sic), prima facie, a just constitutional balance
        must overwhelmingly prioritize. the harmful effects of this
        hazardous air on present and future generations, irreversible and         B
        imperceptible as they are, over the immediate commercial
        constraints of the manufacturers and suppliers of fireworks ... "
        3. In the process, this Court also recognised the duty of the State
to ensure a healthy environment in tenns of Article 48A of the Constitution
of India as well as the duty of the citizens to ensure the same under
Article 51 A(g) of the Constitution. The Court also reminded itself of the C
"precautionary principle" which mandates that where there are threats -
of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not
be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental
degradation. In the order the Court had taken note of the deleterious
effects of air pollution on the health of the people, particularly the children. D
Going by all these considerations, the Court passed the following
directions:
        "19. We thus consider it inappropriate that explosives which are
        used as fireworks should be available in the market in the NCR
        till further orders. The mechanism of the law in this regard is           E
        clear. Rule 118 of the Explosive Rules, 2008, framed under the
        Explosives Act, 1884, provides for the manner in which licenses
        issued under the Explosives Act to store and sell explosives could
        be suspended or cancelled. Sub-Rule (5) thereof specifically
        confers on the Central Government a power to suspend or cancel
        a license if it considers that it is in public interest. This provision   F
        also makes it clear that an opportunity to hear the licensee could
        be dispensed with if the Central Government considers that in
        public interest. This Court finds that the grave air quality situation
        in NCR is one such case, where this Court, can intervene and
        suspend the licenses to store and sell fireworks in the NCR. We           G
        direct the Central Government to:                    ,
        (i) ~ Suspend all such licenses as permit sale of fireworks,
        ·     wholesale and retail within the territory of NCR.
        (ii)   The suspension shall remain in force till further orders of
               this Court.                                                        H
92            SUPREME f:OURT REPORTS                       [2017) 10 S.C.R.


A           (iii) No such licenses shall be granted or renewed till furtht:r
                  orders.
            20. In addition to the above, we direct the CPCB to study and
            prepare a report on the harmful effects of the materials which
            are currently being used in the manufacture of fireworks. The
B           report shall be submitted within a period of three months to this
            Court."
         4. Since direction was given to the Central Pollution Control Board
  (CPCB) to study and prepare a report of the harmful effects of the
  materials which are currently being used in the manufacture of fireworks
c and submit a report within three months, the matter was taken up for
  consideration thereafter from time to time. It is not necessary to give
  the details of the orders which were passed in this behalf. In the meantime,
  the manufacturers of fire crackers as well as licence holders also filed
  applications for modification of the said interim order; one such application
  being - IA No. 52448 of 2017, which has culminated in passing the
D orders dated September 12, 2017. A perusal of this order clinchingly
  reveals that the Court has recognised the serious problem of air pollution
  in Delhi and NCR and the manner in which it has worsened due to
  fireworks during Diwali days in the year 2016. The Court also took note
  of the steps which were taken from time to time by various authorities to
E reduce air pollution and after the passing of the aforesaid order dated
  November I I, 2016. The Court also ·discussed the provisions of the
  Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosive Rules, 2008 framed thereunder
   and further steps which were required to be taken in this behalf.
         5. In this Order as well, the Court has acknowledged the dire
p need for improving air quality, which was the result of various reasons
  (burning of crackers/ fireworks being one of them) as well as importance
  of elimination ofair pollution which was paramount for the health of the
  residents of Delhi and NCR. The Court also accepted that one of the
  possible methods for reducing it during Diwali is by continuing the
  suspension of licences for the sale of fireworks, thereby implicitly
G prohibiting the bursting of fireworks. However, at the same time, the
  Court expressed the opinion that continuing the suspension of licences
  might be too radical a step to take for the present. It was deemed ·
  appropriate to adopt a graded and balanced approach, which is necessary
  that will reduce and gradually eliminate air pollution ir. Delhi and in the
H NCR, caused by the bursting of fireworks. In the process, the Court
    ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND                               93
                OTHERS [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

took into consideration the interest of those who had already been granted     A
a valid permanent licence to posses and sell fireworks in Delhi and the
NCR. We would like to reproduce the following paragraphs from the
said order:
       "67. The right to health coupled with the right to breathe clean
       air leaves no manner of doubt that it is important that air pollution   B
       deserves to be eliminated and one of the possible methods of
       reducing it during Diwali is by continuing the suspension of
       licences for the sale of fireworks and therefore implicitly,
       prohibiting the bursting of fireworks.
        68. In our considered opinion, continuing the suspension of c
       licences might be too radical a step to take for the present - a
       graded and balanced approach is necessary that will reduce and
       gradually eliminate air pollution in Delhi and in the NCR caused
       by the bursting of fireworks. At the same time it is necessary to
       ensure that injustice is not caused to those who have already
       been granted a valid permanent licence to possess and sell D
       fireworks in Delhi and the NCR. The graded and balanced
       approach is not intended to dilute our primary concern which is
       and remains the health of everybody and the human right to
       breathe good quality air or at least not be compelled to breathe
       poor quality air. Generally speaking this must take precedence E
       over the commercial or other interest of the applicant and those
       granted a permanent licence to possess and sell fireworks.
       69. But, from the material before us, it cannot be said with any
      great degree of certainty that the extremely poor quality of air in
      Delhi in November and December 2016 was the result only of F
      bursting fireworks around Diwali. Certainly, there were other
      causes as well, but even so the contribution of the bursting of
      fireworks cannot be glossed over. Unfortunately, neither is it
      possible to give an accurate or relative assessment of the
      contribution of the other identified factors nor the contribution of
      bursting fireworks to the poor air quality in Delhi and in the NCR. G
      Consequently, a complete ban on the sale of fireworks would be
      an extreme step that might not be fully warranted by the facts
      available to us. There is, therefore, some justification for
      modifying the interim order passed on 11th November, 2016 and
      lifting the suspension of the pennanent licei :ces.                  H
94     SUPRE~E COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 10 S.C.R.


A     70. At the same time, it cannot be forgotten that admittedly
     there is a huge quantity of fireworks in Delhi and in the NCR
     and the figure has been provided to us by the applicant. Similarly,
     there can be no doubt that the Delhi Police had issued a large
      number of temporary licences in 2016 and it would not be
      unreasonable to assume that around and during Diwali, there
B
      would have been some illegal temporary shops set up, whether
      known l:r not known to the police. We do not have the figures
      with regard to the NCR, but we assume that like in Delhi, a large
      number oftetnparary licences have been issued for the possession
      and sale of fireworks. Therefore, there is a need to regulate the
 c    availability and sale of fireworks in Delhi and the NCR."
     6. It is followed by the following directions:
      "71.As mentioned above, the health of the people in Delhi and in
      the NCR must take precedence over any commercial or other
      interest of the applicant or any of the permanent 1icensees and,
 D    therefore, a graded regulation is necessary which would
      eventually result in a prohibition. Taking all factors into
      consideration, we are of the view that the following orders and
      directions are required to be issued and we do so:
      (1) The directions issued by this Court in Sadar Bazar Fire
 E    Works (Pucca Shop)Association shall stand partially modified
      tc. th~ extent that they are not in conformity with the Explosives
      Rules which shall be implemented in full by the concerned
      authorities. Safety from fire hitzards is one of our concerns in
      this regard.
 F     (2) Specifically, Rule 15 relating to marking on explosives and
       packages and Rule 84 relating to temporary shops for possession
       and sale of fireworks during festivals of the Explosives Rules
       shall be strictly enforced. This should not be construed to mean
       that the other Rules need not be enforced - all Rules should be
 G     enforced.But if the fireworks do not conform to the requirements
       of Rules 15 and 84, they cannot be sold in the NCR, including
       Delhi and this prohibition is absolute.
       (3) The directions issued and restrictions imposed in the order
       passed by this Court on 18th July, 2005 in Noise Pollution (V)
       shall continue to be in force.
 H
ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND                             95
            OTHERS [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

  (4) The concerned police authorities and the District Magistrates      A
  will ensure that fireworks are not burst in silence zones that is,
  an area at least I 00 meters away from hospitals, nursing homes,
  primary and district health-care centres, educational institutions,
  courts, religious places or any other area that may be declared
  as a silence zone by the concerned authorities.
                                                                         B
  (5) The Delhi Police is directed to reduce the grant of temporary
  licences by about 50% of the numberoflicences granted in 2016.
  The number of temporary licences should be capped at 500.
  Similarly, the States in the NCR are restrained from granting
  more than 50% of the number of t_emporary licences granted in
  2016. The area of distribution of the temporary licences is entirely   C
  for the authorities to decide.
  (6) The Union of India will ensure strict compliance with the
  Notification GSR No. 64(E) dated 27th January, 1992 regarding
  the ban 011 import of fireworks. The Union oflndia is at liberty to
  update and revise this notification in view of the passage of time     D
  and further knowledge gained over the last 25 years and issue a
  fresh notification, if necessary.
  (7) The Department of Education of the Government of NCT of
  Delhi and the corresponding Department in other States in the
  NCR shall immediately formulate a plan of action, in not more E
  than 15 days, to reach out to children in all the schools through
  the school staff, volunteers and NGOs to sensitize and educate
  school children 011 the health hazards and ill-effects ofbreathi11g
  polluted air. including airthat is polluted due to fireworks. School
  children should be encouraged to reduce, if not eliminate, the F
  bursting of fireworks as a part of any festivities.
  (8) The Government of NCT of Delhi and other States in the
  NCR may consider interacting with established medical institutions
  for issuing advisories cautioning people about the health hazards
  of bursting fireworks.                                                 G
  (9) The interim direction issued by this Court on 31st July, 2017
  prohibiting the use of compounds of antimony, lithium, mercury,
  arsenic and lead in the manufacture of fireworks is made absolute.
  In addition, the use of strontium chromate in the manufacture of
  fireworks is prohibited.
                                                                         H
96    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 10 S.C.R.


A    (10) Fireworks containing aluminium, sulphur, potassium and
     barium may be sold in Delhi and in the NCR, provided the
     composition already approved by PESO is maintained. It is the
     responsibility of PESO to ensure compliance of the standards it
     has formulated.
B    ( 11) Since there are enough fireworks available for sale in Delhi
     and the NCR, the transport of fireworks into Delhi and the NCR
     from ::::•tside the ' gion is prohibited and the concerned law
     enforcement authorities will ensure that there is no further entry
     of fireworks into Delhi and the NCR till further orders. In our
     opinion, even 50,00,000 kg of fireworks is far more than enough
c    for Dussehra and Diwali in 2017. The permanent licensees are
     at liberty to exhaust their existirig stock of fireworks in Delhi and
     the NCR and, if that is not possible, take measures to transport
     the stocks outside Delhi and the NCk.
     (12) The suspension of permanent licences as directed by the
D    order dated 11th November, 2016 is lifted for the time being.
     This might require a review after Diwali depending on the ambient
     air quality post Diwali. However, it is made explicit 11-'-.r the sale
     of fireworks by the permanent licensees must conform tv the
     directions given above and must be fully in compliance with the
 E   Explosives Rules. We were informed that the permanent licences
     were issued by PESO and therefore the responsibility is on PESO
     ~;:i ensure compliance.

     (13) While lifting the suspension on the permanent licences
     already granted, we put these licensees on notice for Dussehra
 F   and Diwali in 2018 that they will be permitted to possess and sell
     only 50% of the quantity permitted in 2017 and that this will
     substantially reduce over the next couple of years. The permanent
     licensees are at liberty t0 fiie objections to this proposed direction
     within 30 days from today and thereafter the objections if any
     will be heard and decided. If no objections are filed, this direction
 G   will become absolute without any further reference to any
     licensee.
      (14) Since there is a lack of clarity on the safety limits of various
      metals and constituents used in fireworks, a research study must
      be jointly carried out by the CPCB and the FDRC laying down
 H
    ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND                            97
                OTHERS [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

         appropriate standards for ambient air quality in relation to the A
        bursting of fireworks and the release of their constituents in the
        air. While Schedule VII of the Environment (Protection) Rules,
         1986 does deal with several metals, but as we have seen there
        are several other metals or constituents of fireworks that have
        not been studied by the CPCB and no standards have been laid B
        down with regard to the concentration of these metals or
        constituents in the ambient air. The CPCB has assured us that it
        will complete the exercise by 15th September, 2017 but keeping
        in mind its track record subsequent to the order dated 11th
        November, 2016 this does not seem possible. Therefore, we grant
        time to the CPCB to come out with definite standards on or C
        before 30th September, 2017.
        (15) In any event, a research study also needs to be conducted
        on the impact of bursting fireworks during Dussehra and Diwali
        on the health of the people. We, therefore, appoint a Committee
        to be chaired by the Chairperson of the CPCB and consisting of D
        officers at the appropriate level from the National Physical
        Laboratory, Delhi, the Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied
        Sciences, Timarpur, Delhi, the Indian Institute of Technology-
        Kanpur, scientists from the State Pollution Control Boards, the
        Fire Development and Research Centre, Sivakasi and Nagpur
        and the National Environment Engineering Research Institute E
        (NEERI) nominated by the Chairperson of the CPCB to submit
        a report in this regard preferably on or before 31st December,
        2017.
        (16) Keeping in mind the adverse effects of air pollution, the
        human right to breathe clean air and the human right to health,     F
        the Central Government and other authorities should consider
        encouraging display fireworks through community participation
        rather than individual bursting of fireworks."
       7. After the aforesaid order is passed, many applications (subject
matter of this Order) have been filed seeking modification of some of G
the aforesaid direc.tions. Pertinently, such applications have come from
both sides.
      8. As far as the petitioners are concerned, they hi1ve filed IA No.
96202 of2017 with the prayer for modification of the order by removing
                                                                            H
98            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 10 S.C.R.


A direction Nos. 5 and 10 to 13. In essence, it is submitted that earlier
  order dated November 11, 2016, which suspended the issuance oflicences
  in full, be restored.
          IA No. 95202 of 2017 is filed by manufacturers of the fireworks
  wherein it is prayed that suspension order dated November 11, 2016
B should not have been removed partially, and the said suspension order
  be lifted in its entirety.
        IA No. 96755 of2017 is preferred by the temporary licence holders
  who are concerned with direction No. I in the order dated September
  12, 2017. Though, the applicants in this application accept the fact that
c Rule 86 of the Explosive Rules lays down the requirement of distance
  which is to be maintained by such licensees from other places like schools,
  hospitals, residences, educational institutions, etc. to ensure that the places
  from which these crackers are sold do not become fire hazards,
  submission is that notwithstanding the aforesaid Rule, since the temporary
  licence holders are allowed to operate within the vicinity for last number
D of years, they should be granted at least one more year to bring their
  operations in conformity with the said Rules. In this application they
  have also sought modification of direction No.5 whereby Delhi Police is
  directed to reduce the grant of temporary licences by about 50% of the
  number of licences which were granted in 2016. Request made is that
E the number should not be reduced drastically by half and reduction should
  have been much lesser than 50%.
            IA No. 92862 of 2017 is filed by certain manufacturers of these
     fireworks with the submission that direction No. I I should be modified
     and these manufacturers who are having their depots where their stocks
 F   of fireworks are lying in the NCR, there should be free flow of
     transportation of these fireworks between Delhi and NCR.
         IA No. 94427 of2017 is an application filed by an NGO seeking
   impleadment in the writ petition and it has also filed IA No. 94429 of
   2017 praying for similar reliefs as that of the petitioners, viz. prohibiting
 G manufacture, suspension/ cancellation of manufacturing licences and
   prohibiting issuance of temporary licences during Diwali 2017.
            9. It is clear from the aforesaid that whereas the petitioners on
   the one hand want restoration of the order of complete suspension of
   licences by restoring the Order passed on November 11, 2016, the
 H manufacturers, traders and licence holders of the fireworks/fire crackers
    ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND                              99
                OTHERS [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

want that the relaxation given in the impugned order should be further        A.
liberalised. In a way, both the parties are seeking review of the said
order by filing these miscellaneous applications.
        10. It is a matter of record that all these parties were heard .at
 length before passing the judgment dated September 12, 2017. Moreover,
 as already pointed out above, even the judgment dated September 12, B
 2017 accepts the problem of air pollution. No doubt, it mentions that
 bursting of fire crackers is not the only cause for alarming air pollution in
 Delhi and NCR, but it is also acknowledged that it is one of the major
 causes. It is also recorded in the judgment that on bursting of these
 crackers during Diwali in 2016, the air quality had sharply deteriorated.
 Notwithstanding the same, the Court deemed it proper to adopt graded
                                                                               c
 approach in reducing and gradually eiiminating of air pollution in Delhi
 and in NCR caused by bursting of fire crackers. Because of this reason,
 rigours of order dated November 11, 2016 are relaxed to the extent
 indicated in the said order. In such a scenario, question of further
 relaxation, as pleaded by the manufactu1'ers and licence holders does D
 not arise. We may point out that Mis. C.A. Sundaram and Neeraj K.
Kaul, learned senior counsel as well as other counsel for these applicants
 had made detailed submissions in this behalf pointing out various
difficulties. However, at the same time, it also could 11ot be disputed that
these were the submissions which were made when the matter was
heard earlier and culminated in the Orders dated September 12, 2017. E
For this reason, we are not recording the said submissions in detail. We
will, however, like to remark that we bestowed our considerntion on
these submissions but are not inclined to accept the same. The argument
of Mr. C.A. Sundaram was that bursting of crackers was not the only
cause of air pollution. There were various other reasons attributable to F
the aforesaid phenomena. He even attempted to demonstrate that the
use of fireworks including fire crackers contributed negligibly in worsening
the air quality standards in Delhi and NCR. However, the material that
was relied upon in support of this submission may not be relevant in the
context. These studies indicate the air quality standards in Delhi and
NCR which generally prevail throughout the year. It cannot be denied G
that there are various other factors which contribute to the air pollution ·
in Delhi and NCR. There is a need to tackle those factors as well.
However, what is the immediate impact of use of fireworks and fire
crackers bursting during Diwali is an altogether different aspect. To this
effect, nothing relevant is produced. On the contrary, we have the direct H
100           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 10 S.C.R.


A evidence of deterioration of air quality at alarming levels, which happens
  every year. As already pointed out above, burning of these fire crackers
  during Diwali in 2016 had shot up pm levels by three times, making
  Delhi the worst city in the world, insofar as air pollution is concerned.
  Direct and immediate cause thereof was burning of crackers during
  Diwali. It is interesting to note that every year before Diwali there are
B
  attempts on the part of the Government (Ministry of Environment,
  Government of India as well as Delhi Government), Media, NGOs and
  various other groups to create awareness in the general public about the
  ill-effects of bursting of these crackers. Campaigns are held in the
  ~.:hools wherein children are discouraged to have fireworks. Thus, there
c is virtually a consensus in the society that crackers should not be burnt
  during Diwali, which can be celebrated with equal fervour by various
  other means as well. Irony is that when causes are brought in the Court,
  there is resistance from certain quarters. It cannot be denied that there
  are adequate statutory provisions, aid whereof can be taken to ban the
D sale of these crackers. It is one of the functions of the judges, in a
  democracy, to bridge the gap between law and the society. Here,
  fortunately, there is no such gap and the Court is only become facilitator
   in invoking the law to fulfill the need of the society.
          11. Insofar as argument of Mr. Neeraj K. Kaul, learned senior
   counsel who appeared for temporary licence holders in I.A. i'!o. 96755
 E of2017, suffice it to state that Explosive Rules have to be strictly followed
   and complied with. It is for this reason that Mr. Kaul could not find fault
   with Direction No. I in the Orders dated September 12, 2017. These
   Rules came into force in the year 2008. They are in operation for almost
   9 years. Giving further time to these licence holders for complying with
 F the said statutory provisions is out of question.
            12. Accordingly, IA Nos. 92862, 95202 and 96755 of 2017 are
      dismissed.
          13. Coming to IA No. 96202 of 2017, we may state at the cost of
   repetition that the petitioners in the writ petition were also heard when
 G the aforesaid order was passed. Further, we are not sitting in appeal
   over the judgment dated September 12,'2017. However, learned counsel
   for the petitioner has made an emphatic and passionate plea on the
   following three counts:
              (a) In the judgment dated September 12, 2017 the Court has
 H                chosen to adopt graded approach. However, at that time it
ARJUN GOPAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND                           l 01
            OTHERS [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

      was not within the knowledge of the petitioners as well as A
      the Court that the CPCB had taken a stand, nearly 20 years
      ago. that Sulphur in fireworks should not be permitted as
      Sulphur on combustion produces Sulphur Dioxide and the
      same is extremely harmful to health. The CPCB has in the
      said proceedings stated that between 9:00 pm to midnight B
      on Diwali day the levels of Sulphur Dioxide content in the
      air is dangerously high. Moreover, all the above authorities
      were also unanimous in their view that crackers should only
      be burst in designated places. Also the CPCB had
      specifically stated that joined crackers should be banned
      by way of their letter dated November 04, 1996 to the C
      Commissioner of Police. Neither the CPCB nor the Delhi
      Police divulged this fact to this Court.
           Insofar as this plea is concerned, except that similar
       attempt made in proceeding before Delhi High Court 20
       years' ago, no fresh material has been brought on record.       D
      The stand taken by the CPCB at that time was the same
       which was taken before this Court when Orders dated
      November 11, 2016 or September 12, 2017 were passed.
      CPCB, therefore, has been consistent in its stand. This was
      stressed by Mr. Panjwani, learned counsel appearing for
      CPCB before us as well, who even took the decision of            E
      supporting the ban. Therefore, in substance, it is not the
      new material which is brought. On the contrary, we find
      that the main objective behind this move, by making
      reference to the aforesaid proceedings in Delhi High Court
      and in the process filing one particular annexure which was      F
      the report submitted at that time to the Court, was an attempt
      to take the matter away from a particular Bench. This is
      not a healthy practice. We denounce the same and place
      on record our strongest condemnation. We are leaving the
      matter at that simply because of the reason that insofar as
      present petition is concerned it has raised a very important     G
      public cause and it needs serious and adequate
      consideration.
  (b) Another submission was that when the Order dated
      November 11, 2016 was passed suspending the licences,
                                                                       H
102           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [20171 10 S.C.R.


A                 the primary reason for passing such an order was rising of
                  pm levels at alarming proportion because of burning of
                  crackers during Diwali, which had direct impact thereupon.
                  Insofar as harmful effect of the materials used in the
                  manufacture of fireworks is concerned, that is another
                  aspect and it is on this aspect that the CPCB was directed
B
                  to carry out further studies. Therefore, insofar as suspension
                  of the licences is concerned, there was no reason to relax
                  that condition.
             (c) It was further pointed out that the previous Order dated
                 November 11, 2016 was passed immediately after Diwa/i.
c                But the effect of that order would not be discernible as in
                 the judgment dated September 12, 2017, the said order stands
                 relaxed. It was pleaded that at least for one Diwali season
                 this suspension should have continued in order to find out
                 the effect thereof.
D         14. These aspects highlighted by the learned counsel appear to be
   convincing. We are of the view that the order suspending the licences
   should be given one chance to test itself in order to find out as to whether
   there would be positive effect of this suspension, particularly during Diwali
   period. Insofar as adverse effects of burning of crackers during Diwali
 E are concerned, those have been witnessed year after year. The <1ir
   quality deteriorates abysmally and alarmingly and the city chokes thereby.
   It leads to closing the schools and the authorities are compelled to take
   various measures on emergent basis, when faced with "health
   emergency" situation. This very situation had occurred on the very next
   morning after Diwali in the year 2016. It resulted in passing the order
 F dated November 11, 2016. This order prevailed during the year but the
   impact and effect of this order remains to be tested on Diwali days.
   Going by these considerations, we are of the opinion that the judgment
   dated September 12, 2017 passed by this Court should be made effective
    only from November 01, 2017. To put it clearly, though we are not
 G tweaking with the various directions contained in the Orders dated
   September 12, 2017, the effect of that Order would not be given during
    this Diwali and, therefore, we are making it effective only from
    November OJ, 2017. We are conscious of the fact that after the said
    order was passed, the police may have issued temporary licences.
    Accordingly, those are suspended forthwith so that there is no further
 H
    ARJUN GO PAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND                         I03
                OTHERS [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

sale of the crackers in Delhi and NCR. Further orders in this behalf can A
be passed on assessing the situation that would emerge after this Diwali
season. IA No. 96202 of 2017 is ordered accordingly.
      IA Nos. 94427 and 94429 of 2017 stand disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
                                                                          B

Nidhi Jain                                             !As disposed of.