Arjun Gopal and Others v. Union of India & Others- A Case Study on PIL for Firecracker Ban & Environmental Protection in India

Firecrackers- Air Pollution- PIL: Supreme Court- Environment

Brief Of Facts & Research Question
In September 2015, a civil writ petition1 was filed in the Supreme Court of India against the Union Government, on behalf of three infants, two of whom were just 6 months old, and one was 14 months old. The petition, filed by their father, expressed grave concerns about their health in the face of severe air pollution in Delhi, specifically citing the potential health hazards caused by firecrackers.

Firecrackers are essentially rolled paper tubes filled with gunpowder (comprising 75% potassium nitrate, 15% charcoal, and 10% sulphur), have been a traditional part of many Indian festivals, including Diwali.2 The appellant urged the court to take necessary measures to curb the causes of air pollution, proposing a complete ban on firecrackers during festivals and beyond.

The author wishes to explore that why the Supreme Court should have declared a complete ban on the production and sale of firecrackers in Delhi & NCR even if the court was faced with the task to balance constitutionally equivalent fundamental rights!

Understanding The Stand Of The Apex Court
The Supreme Court initially responded by imposing a blanket ban on the sale of firecrackers, a decision that was later modified to adopt a graded regulation approach. This approach included measures such as suspending licenses, implementing restrictions on the sale of online firecrackers, and encouraging the use of 'green' crackers (with reduced pollution) to enjoy burning within a limited time slot as specified by law.

The court's actions were guided by suggestions from reputable institutions like CSIR (Council of Scientific and Industrial Research), NEERI (National Environmental Engineering Research Institute), and CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board). The court's subsequent judgments3 delved into legal principles such as Article 48(A) 4 (Directive Principles of State Policy), 51 A(g) 5 (Fundamental Duties), the precautionary principle 6, and the polluter pays principle.7

Nature & Implementation Of Orders
After the 9 consecutive writs, The Supreme Court gave its latest order on November 7, 2023; they want to take a balanced approach to deal with the problem because the discussion so far did not lead to a clear decision because there hasn't been a final enough detailed study on different aspects of the issue.

The court evaluated the economic and societal impacts of a complete ban on firecrackers. While acknowledging the advantages, such as preventing animal cruelty and aligning with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) related to health, climate action, and sustainable consumption, it also highlighted the significant disadvantage of potential livelihood loss for hundreds of families involved in the firecracker industry.

Author’s Evaluation
According to the WHO, air pollution is responsible for an estimated seven million premature deaths worldwide every year. Delhi emerges as world's most polluted capital city for 4th consecutive year.9

India's commitments to international agreements on climate change and sustainable development goals necessitate decisive actions to reduce pollution, with a firecracker ban aligning with these global efforts. In this case, opponents acknowledged air pollution concerns but paradoxically opposed the ban, highlighting the need for clear action despite conflicting interests. While economic hardships were argued against a ban, the overlooked health, leading to economic losses for affected individuals underscore the ban's necessity. Green firecrackers, termed as eco-friendly, still contribute to pollution, necessitating stricter regulation and quality control.

The Supreme Court could have set a precedent for broader environmental protection by addressing other festivals and activities impacting air quality and public health. A complete ban would have reduced animal cruelty, aligning with Sustainable Development Goals, promoting public health and climate action, outweighing economic crunch.

Also, recognizing regional variations in pollution levels, a targeted approach for different areas, along with public education, taxation and restrictions can promote responsible firecracker use without compromising public health. As Nitin Pai, in his article, argues that New Delhi is not India, there are many cities which are not as polluted as New Delhi is, so having the same approach pan India is not a good idea.

Moreover, this evaluation is further substantiated by the legal developments and precedents that follows:
The Sustainable Development Goal 1111 aims to make human settlements and cities safe for survival. Justice Bharucha (dissenting opinion) in the Narmada Bachao Andolan case12 , highlighted that some actions nullify socio-economic benefits.

The Supreme Court, in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India 13, ordered the closure of leather industries causing harm to river ‘Palar’, recognizing the price of a healthy environment, as in Ratlam Municipality v. Vardhi Chand, 14 wherein the court held that it is the price for a healthy living that we have to pay, so the limestone quarries were closed, quoting the court "we are conscious that closure of quarries may bring unemployment, loss of revenue, but life, health and ecology have greater importance to the people".

Every year on 7 September, the International Day of Clean Air for Blue Skies15 raises awareness on air quality. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 198116, emerged from global efforts as a result of decisions taken at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in June, 1972 emphasizing on the right to have clean air, as seen in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India17 (Vehicular Pollution Case) that led to lead-free petrol and drastically decreased air pollution.

The Environment (Protection) Act, 198618 , serving as a parent act for many other rules and laws dealing with the issue of pollution, which also includes air pollution and the Ozone Depleting Substances (Regulation and Control) Rules, 200019 , has provisions which deal with prohibition on new investments with ozone depleting substances, regulation of import, export and sale of products made with or containing ozone depleting substances along amid Monitoring and reporting requirements for the same. In Murli Deora v. Union of India20, the Supreme Court protected non-smokers from air pollution in public places, underlining the right to life as enshrined under Article 21.

Conclusion
While advocating for a complete ban on firecrackers, it's crucial to acknowledge that this alone won't miraculously cleanse our polluted skies. However, it's equally important not to solely rely on authorities; every individual can contribute in small ways to ensure humanity's survival. Consider this: the next time you ignite firecrackers, imagine yourself in Arjun Gopal's shoes, approaching the Supreme Court to safeguard future generations. As your hard-earned money dissipates in smoke with each firecracker lit, let's choose to illuminate the world with laughter, not firecrackers.

End-Notes:

1. Arjun Gopal & Others v. Union of India, (2016) 1 SCC 412.
2. What goes in a firecracker, ECONOMIC TIMES, (Nov 03, 2018), https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/heres-a-look-at-what-goes-into-a-firecracker/articleshow/66492702.cms.
3. Nitin Pai, Director Takshashila Institutions, bursting firecrackers on Diwali isn’t the problem, THE PRINT, (last visited March 14, 2024), https://theprint.in/opinion/bursting-firecrackers-on-diwali-not-problem-making-it-national-moral-issue-is/545600/.
4. Arjun Gopal & Others v. Union of India, (2019) 13 SCC 532.
5. INDIA CONST. art. 48(A).
6. INDIA CONST. art. 51 A (g).
7. Stockholm Declaration, UN Doc. A/CONF. 48/14, at 2 and Corr. 1 (1972).
8. OECD/GD, (92) 81 (1972).
9. Live Law, pg.4-9, https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/816-arjun-gopal-v-union-of-india-22-sep-2023-500655.pdf.
10. DNA India, Varnika Srivastava, https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-delhi-emerges-as-world-s-most-polluted-capital-city-for-4th-consecutive-year-india-ranks-at-3081908, (last visited March 14, 2024).
11. UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, https://sdgs.un.org/goals, (last visited April 20, 2024).
12. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Ors., (2002) WP (C) 328.
13. Vellore citizen’s welfare forum v. Union of India, AIR (1996) SC 2145.
14. Ratlam Municipality v. Vardhi Chand, AIR (1980) SC 1622.
15. UNEP, https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/collective-action-needed-improve-quality-air-we-share, (last visited April 20, 2024).
16. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (14 of 1981, India).
17. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1991 SCC (2) 353.
18. Shubhadra Menon, Switchover to Unleaded Petrol Gains Momentum but is the Hyped Fuel Really Clean? INDIA TODAY (last visited April 20, 2024), https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/environment/story/19980914-switchover-to-unleaded-petrol-gainsmomentum-but-is-the-hyped-fuel-really-clean-827052-1998-09-14.
19. The Ozone Depleting Substances (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 (India).
20. Murli Deora v. Union of India and others, 2002 AIR 40.

Written By: Aaisha Hashmi, BA.LL.B 7th Semester student, HILSR Jamia Hamdard, South Delhi