Supreme Court against blanket firecracker ban in Delhi-NCR, but asks ‘what is religious about it’

The Supreme Court on Monday called for a practical approach to regulating firecrackers in Delhi-NCR, stressing that efforts to tackle air pollution must take public health concerns into account without hurting religious sentiments. The court said it was not inclined to impose a blanket ban and urged people to voluntarily adopt safer ways of celebrating.Supreme Court said that the Court would not hurt religious sentiments but urged people to voluntarily adopt safer practices. (PTI/HT)A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana said public awareness and cooperation from citizens would be more effective in encouraging responsible celebrations. The court was hearing suo motu proceedings concerning air pollution in Delhi-NCR, covering issues such as firecrackers, crop residue burning and solid waste management.Also Read | ‘Do not put words in our mouth’: Supreme Court says it never adjudicated new Form 6, will examine challenge on Oct 27“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,” the bench said, according to Bar and Bench.What's religious about firecrackers? SC asks“What is religious about bursting of crackers,” Justice Bagchi asked.CJI Kant assured that the court would not hurt religious sentiments but urged people to voluntarily adopt safer practices.The amicus curiae also highlighted the health risks posed by air pollution, particularly to elderly people, children and those who are infirm. However, he submitted that 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.What CJI Kant said?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.Also Read | 'Don't drag Supreme Court into politics': CJI Surya Kant amid Delhi protests row“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 greater 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.