No 24-hour firecracker use during Diwali but no total ban either: Supreme Court moots balanced approach

The Supreme Court on Wednesday called for a balanced approach when it comes to the use of firecrackers during the upcoming Diwali season, hinting that it would specify particular timings for bursting permissible types of firecrackers.

A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale indicated that it was not in favour of a total ban on firecracker use since that could hurt the sentiments of people celebrating Diwali.

However, the Court made it clear that it would not allow the bursting of firecrackers throughout the day either.

"We will make it very clear. Neither we are going to agree with you for total ban. Nor are we going to allow them to do it for 24 hours. Total ban will affect sentiments. And allowing them throughout the day will have huge impact on every other living being, including old, sick, and children. We need to find a solution by which we can give a specified time," the Court said.

During earlier hearings, the Court had urged the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to consider relaxing restrictions on firecrackers. Today, the Court added that it would specify which firecrackers are allowed to be used after the CPCB submits a report in the matter.

The Court was hearing a 2015 case in which it has been passing orders imposing restrictions of firecrackers in Delhi and other north Indian States which are affected by air pollution between October to January.

Due to the persistent problem of poor air quality in Delhi, the Court had earlier banned the use of firecrackers in Delhi.

However, in 2025, the top court permitted the sale and bursting of green firecrackers in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) during the Diwali festival for a limited period.

During hearings in July and August this year, the Court further sought the CPCB's response to whether a partial relaxation with respect to certain types of crackers may be possible.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati today sought time till October 15 to place the CPCB's response on the use of barium-based firecrackers.

"Outdoor testing of barium-based firecrackers are yet to be conducted. I am requesting time till October 15," she said.

She also suggested that the manufacture of joint firecrackers or larri, which involves a string of individual firecrackers linked together by a single fuse to go off consecutively, could be allowed subject to certain conditions. The Court today said it was inclined to accept this suggestion.

"During the course of hearing ASG submitted information pertaining to joint firecrackers. We are inclined to accept the suggestions made," it recorded in its order.

Meanwhile, another counsel raised concerns about the pollution expected in Delhi in the coming months.

"During Diwali, crop burning will also happen. Those two days create so much havoc in the environment," the counsel remarked.

The Court, in turn, assured that it was not going to allow unrestricted use of firecrackers, but would examine whether they can be used during specifc timings during the festival season.

Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, representing certain firecracker manufacturers, urged the Court not to single out Delhi when it comes to examining restrictions on firecracker use.

"There is a pan India regime; Delhi should not be isolated for unnecessary reasons. I understand there are climatic reasons etc, your lordships can modify the order, moderate the order, but both matters should be heard together. It’s necessary to reconcile this, Arjun Gopal and MC Mehta case," he said.

The Court proceeded to grant the CPCB time to submit its report on the impact of barium-based firecrackers.

The Court also took note of submissions that some of the issues raised in the present case overlap with issues raised in another pending case. The Court agreed that ideally, both matters should be heard together by a common bench.

"In another matter pending in MC Mehta case, an order has been passed on October 15, 2025. The issues in the matter before us and the that would be overlapping. And therefore, it would be ideal to take both of them together. We permit counsel for parties to make a mention before the appropriate bench. All other applications, including those seeking ban may be taken up for hearing," the Court recorded in its order.

[Read Live Coverage]