Supreme Court's Diwali firecracker ban should be obeyed, but criticised as unreasonable
The Supreme Court’s decision to ban crackers takes Diwali out of Diwali. The writ petition was filed by a father on behalf of three infants in 2015. At one stage when the court was changing a ban order he all but wept to recuse himself because he did not get his way.
In his plan, after the Delhi ban, the court would follow suit in every major city. In court, I said this seemed as if he was Alexander the Great conquering city after city to rid them of pollution. Usually, a private interest litigation cannot be filed as a publicity interest litigant. It is not what one father wants but what all fathers should want subject to balancing of counter-vailing interests.
Missing the core point
Crackers do cause pollution which increases during Diwali days. But temporarily. They are not the major pollutant in Delhi. Delhi’s pollution comes from its trucks, buses, diesel (and petrol) cars, motor cycles, industrial pollution, garbage and of various other kinds.
All are subject to insufficient control regimes. This petition refers to SC orders on polluting industries (1996), commercial vehicles (1998), closing of brick kilns (1998), and trucks bypassing Delhi (2004). Those are the real culprits. Adding Diwali to these, with the same ferocity misses the wood for the trees.
Let us see how courts dealt with this. Initially on October 16, 2015, the Chief Justice Thakur Bench preferred to use the publicity and education approach. On November 11, 2016, Thakur C.J. (with Justices Sikri and Bobde) took a new turn directed the central government to suspend and to deny renewals all licences in the Delhi NCR region till further orders — asking for a report on “the harmful effects of materials used in the manufacture of fireworks”.
No licences means no sale, no crackers; and to me, no Diwali. Of course, no such report came until prompting by Justice Lokur’s bench which looked pointedly at the materials used.
The supposed charge against Diwali crackers is they use charcoal, sulphur and potassium nitrate, aluminium, iron, steel, magnesium dust and zinc (for sparks and colour) in life threatening proportions. This is contested on the extent to which the product is dangerous. Justice Lokur’s Bench concentrated on product safety and after many hearings banned the use of some ingredients.
The Sivakasi manufacturers (largest producer) said their product did not and would not use many ingredients. Where used they would be proportionately low to meet safety standards. Justice Lokur’s Bench examined the issue from all aspects including the products to surmise that the poor quality of Delhi’s air was not due just to bursting firecrackers though it contributed, but to other causes as well.
He directed maintaining control over explosives, putting a cap over licenses to 500, indicated areas where license could not be burst etc. And above all lifted the suspension on permanent licences ordering further research.
Flip flops
The next strategy was to somehow get the case out of Lokur’s bench. This was done by pointing out that Lokur had as an amicus lawyer presented a report on noise pollution in 1995 before the Delhi High Court. How unworthy. But it succeeded. Lokur recused himself. The matter was assigned to Justice Sikri.
On October 9, 2017 Justice Sikri went many steps back (later protesting that this was tarred as a communal issue) restored the earlier Thakur-Sikri-Bobde ban of November 11, 2016, suspending Lokur’s order till after Diwali. An attempt to change this order on October 13 failed. Environmental law has a strategy of considered permissions and prohibitions.
Diwali is the most celebrated public event in India. It has become almost part of the faith. It is celebrated by young and old, rich and poor.
When the poor of all kinds cannot afford crackers, they watch the starlit sky with amazement. That is all inequity of wealth permits them. Crackers are also used for celebrations and occasions such as New Year, birthdays, Dussehra, Christmas, marriage, cricket, etc. It is a wondrous thing. But they should be controlled and not banned. My children stopped crackers except symbolically because education worked.
Make fireworks safer
Crackers are produced by workers at all levels — production, transport, distribution for stocking and retailers. For months they have been idle. They do not have jobs. Their families suffer. Their children suffer. Don’t say to these people that they don’t matter.
Undoubtedly Delhi is a polluted city. Its pollution has to be met by massive measures about vehicles, industries, rubbish, petrol and diesel cars. The solutions vary. Diwali crackers have to be dealt with. But on two days in the life of the nation crackers bring cheer subject to time, place and other caps on product and licences.
Make crackers safer. Control the hours. But don’t deprive the one thing that people associate as part of Diwali. Crackers have been part of social celebration. In the first volume of Mao Tse Tung’s works he says: “Oxen are a treasured possession. Peasants complained of a slaughter of a cow.”
The erring Chamber of Commerce “besides paying a fine had to let off fire crackers by way of apology”. Celebratory crackers are not a sin. They celebrate life. Precautionary measures to control them are good. Let a lawyer’s private concern for his family masquerading as a public interest litigation not hold us all to ransom on what we should do in Diwali. Court orders are to be obeyed. But we can bonafide criticise them as unreasonable. May the court change its views.
(Courtesy of Mail Today)