The Supreme Court on Monday discussed the need to balance public health concerns with religious sentiments while considering restrictions on firecrackers in Delhi-NCR.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana said that while the Court was not inclined to pass orders banning firecrackers, people should realise the health hazards of the same and resort to safer practices.

“We will not hurt religious sentiments, but at the same time, people should themselves come forward and opt for it. The whole exercise should involve a balancing approach. If we do that, society itself becomes awakened and people come forward. If the citizenry is concerned and civil society is aware of these things, I think that will be the best approach,” he said.

The Court was hearing suo motu proceedings initiated by it on air pollution in Delhi-NCR, including firecrackers, crop residue burning and solid waste management.

During the hearing, Justice Bagchi questioned the religious basis for bursting firecrackers, when the amicus curiae highlighted the health risks posed by air pollution and the difficulty of enforcing restrictions.

“What is religious about bursting of crackers?” asked Justice Bagchi.

The amicus responded that the Court had to balance health concerns with religious sentiments.

“Gods would be aghast if they knew that children were suffering and getting sick in their name,” said the amicus.

CJI Kant assured that the Court would not hurt religious sentiments but urged people to voluntarily adopt safer practices.

The amicus also highlighted the health risks posed by air pollution, particularly to elderly people, children and those who are infirm. However, he submitted that any restrictions on firecrackers were unlikely to be effective without proper enforcement.

“It sounds really nice in Court, that it is only two hours or one hour. But the Court also knows that it is not implemented. It is impossible for police officers to be in every street all the time. It will not be implemented. These arguments do not work on the ground,” said the amicus.

The amicus suggested that the issue be referred to the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), the statutory body responsible for air quality management in the region, which could consider the available material along with medical concerns.

CJI Kant, however, cautioned against passing restrictive orders.

“We have to be extremely careful in passing an order unless we are in a position to make it manageable and enforceable,” he said.

He added that restrictive orders could be perceived as coercive action and called for a practical approach to the issue.

“The only problem, and we are repeating this, is that the moment you pass an order, a restrictive order, people take it as if it is a kind of coercive action. It is a human reaction. We should be very practical and pragmatic in these things. I think we have sufficient time. We should make an earnest appeal to people that they may celebrate in whatever way they want, but they should keep these two or three things in mind and restrict their celebrations to particular hours, as was done last time,” said CJI Kant.

He called for public awareness about the harmful effects of firecrackers and suggested that the sale of highly polluting varieties could be restricted while less harmful alternatives could be permitted.

“We have to make people wiser, bring awareness and tell them which firecrackers are harmful and which are less harmful. We should promote that kind of culture and persuade people to return to our original culture, where there were only sparklers and the lighting of lamps,” he said.

Additionally, CJI Kant suggested that awareness material be published to encourage people to minimise the use of firecrackers and restrict their use to particular hours to prevent noise and air pollution.

The Court also discussed measures to curb stubble burning ahead of the upcoming pollution season.

Justice Bagchi referred to State proposals to purchase crop residue and explore its commercial use. CJI Kant added that crop residue had become commercially viable and financially beneficial for farmers, adding that a market platform needed to be created.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati submitted that a policy was in place for both in-situ and ex-situ treatment of crop residue. She further said that the Union government would file a detailed affidavit on the measures taken.

The amicus acknowledged that the Union government has introduced several plans and financial incentives to address the issue.

Bhati then said an updated status report would be placed before the Court, setting out the measures already taken, preventive steps undertaken and future plans to address air pollution.

The matter will be heard next on October 15.

[Read Live Coverage]