Introduction:
In the ongoing environmental litigation titled MC Mehta v. Union of India WP (C) 13029/1985, the Supreme Court of India once again turned its attention to the serious and recurring issue of air pollution caused by firecrackers. This case, which has been at the forefront of India’s environmental jurisprudence for decades, came up for hearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran. The matter initially focused on pollution in the Delhi-NCR region, but during the course of arguments, the bench orally observed that the right to pollution-free air cannot be limited only to citizens residing in the national capital or its surrounding states. Instead, the Court raised the possibility of extending a ban on firecrackers across the country to protect all citizens equally under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The case represents a continuation of the judicial efforts first spearheaded in the mid-1980s by noted environmentalist and advocate MC Mehta, who invoked the constitutional responsibility of the State to secure a clean and healthy environment for all.
The hearing dealt with multiple dimensions of the firecracker ban: the balance between the livelihood of manufacturers and traders, the rights of citizens to breathe clean air, the disparities between different regions of India in terms of pollution management, and the role of the State in ensuring equality in environmental protection. Previously, a bench led by Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan directed the states of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Haryana to enforce a complete ban on firecrackers in the National Capital Region under Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. This directive was part of the Court’s broader attempt to regulate Delhi’s severe winter pollution, which worsens between October and February due to stubble burning, weather conditions, and extensive use of fireworks during festivals. However, the present bench went beyond Delhi-specific concerns and posed a fundamental constitutional question: should the right to breathe pollution-free air be confined to the capital city, or should it be guaranteed equally across the nation?
Arguments Presented Before the Court:
The arguments before the bench reflected the clash between environmental rights and livelihood concerns. On behalf of the Court, Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar provided a nuanced perspective. He acknowledged that a seasonal ban on firecrackers, particularly during the October to February period when air quality levels are at their worst, would be justified and consistent with public health goals. However, he cautioned that a complete and permanent ban on the manufacturing, trading, and selling of firecrackers would directly harm the livelihoods of thousands of workers engaged in the industry, particularly in states such as Tamil Nadu, where firecracker manufacturing forms a significant portion of the local economy. According to him, a balanced approach that restricts the usage of firecrackers during peak pollution periods, while allowing their production and sale otherwise, would serve both environmental and economic interests.
The Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the Union of India and emphasized the unique severity of air pollution in the Delhi-NCR region. She pointed out that the situation in the capital is exceptional because every winter, pollution levels rise to hazardous levels, making it almost impossible to breathe. She vividly remarked that residents of Delhi “literally choke” during this period, and the worsening air quality has serious health consequences for vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly, and those from economically weaker sections who cannot afford measures like air purifiers. Bhati argued that while air pollution is indeed a nationwide problem, the Court’s orders in respect of NCR were based on the extreme situation there and should not be automatically applied to the entire country without carefully examining data from other states.
On the other hand, Chief Justice BR Gavai made a significant oral observation challenging this Delhi-centric approach. He reminded the parties that the right to clean and pollution-free air under Article 21 belongs to every citizen of India, not just those in the capital city. Drawing on his personal experiences, the CJI recalled a visit to Amritsar during the previous winter, where he was told that the air pollution in Punjab was even worse than in Delhi. In his view, adopting policies that protect only the residents of Delhi would create an unjustifiable hierarchy of rights, as if citizens of the capital were somehow more entitled to clean air than those living in other regions. The CJI stated unequivocally that environmental protection cannot be restricted to Delhi merely because the Supreme Court is located there or because Delhi is home to “elite citizens.” Pollution, he stressed, is a nationwide problem that affects rural and urban areas alike, and any policy devised must be on a Pan-India basis to be truly just and effective.
The ASG, however, offered a contrasting perspective, clarifying that the problem of air pollution is not an “elite” concern. In fact, she argued, the elites often escape the problem during Diwali by leaving the city for vacations, while the real sufferers are the poor and marginalized populations who remain in polluted areas without access to expensive health safeguards. Thus, she urged the Court to keep in mind that air pollution disproportionately affects those least capable of defending themselves, making it all the more urgent for the State to address the issue thoughtfully.
The Court’s Observations and Interim Directions:
The bench, after hearing both sides, made certain important oral observations but refrained from issuing an immediate nationwide ban. Instead, the Court underlined the necessity of examining the issue holistically and based on scientific data rather than anecdotal evidence alone. The judges pointed out that the Environment Protection Act empowers the authorities to take measures to control air pollution, and any future directions must align with the statutory framework. They also highlighted that enforcement remains a crucial concern, as merely issuing blanket bans often fails in practice due to lack of compliance on the ground.
Recognizing the need for an evidence-based approach, the bench directed the Additional Solicitor General to obtain a report from the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) on the current state of air quality in Delhi. The report, expected to provide detailed scientific insights, will enable the Court to assess whether its earlier Delhi-specific orders should be extended across the country or whether differentiated policies should be crafted for different regions depending on their air quality levels. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on September 22, 2025, where the bench is likely to engage in a more detailed examination of possible nationwide measures.
Broader Constitutional and Policy Implications:
This hearing carries implications far beyond the question of firecrackers. It touches upon the fundamental principles of equality and environmental justice. Article 21, which guarantees the right to life, has consistently been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to a clean and healthy environment. By raising the question of whether this right should be equally enforceable across India, the Court has spotlighted the need for uniform national policies on critical environmental issues. The oral observations of the Chief Justice remind policymakers that environmental degradation does not respect geographical boundaries and that selective protections can deepen inequalities between citizens.
At the same time, the arguments of the Amicus Curiae and the ASG reveal the complexity of environmental governance. On one side lies the undeniable urgency of curbing pollution, which has devastating health consequences. On the other side lies the equally important need to safeguard livelihoods, particularly in industries that depend on the production and sale of goods like firecrackers. A pan-India ban would inevitably raise questions of federalism, economic policy, and alternative employment opportunities for those affected. The Court, therefore, stands at the intersection of competing constitutional values: the right to life, the right to livelihood, and the duty of the State to protect the environment under Articles 48A and 51A(g).
The debate over firecrackers is also symbolic of a larger cultural conflict between traditional practices and modern environmental concerns. Firecrackers are deeply embedded in Indian festivals such as Diwali, weddings, and other celebrations. A nationwide ban would inevitably face resistance from those who view fireworks as integral to their cultural identity. Yet, as the Court has repeatedly stressed in its environmental jurisprudence, the preservation of public health must take precedence when traditions pose a risk to life and well-being.