NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday stressed the need to balance religious sentiments with public health concerns while considering restrictions on firecrackers in Delhi-NCR. It said a greater public awareness and voluntary adoption of less polluting practices could offer a way forward.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said it was not inclined to hurt religious sentiments but emphasised that citizens should be encouraged to celebrate festivals in ways that minimise air and noise pollution.“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,” the Chief Justice said, according to news agency PTI.The bench was hearing suo motu proceedings concerning air pollution in the National Capital Region, covering issues including firecrackers, stubble burning and solid waste management.During the hearing, Justice Bagchi questioned the religious basis for bursting firecrackers, asking, “What is religious about bursting crackers?”Senior advocate Aparajita Singh, who is assisting the bench as amicus curiae, highlighted the health risks associated with air pollution, particularly for children, elderly people and those with existing health vulnerabilities.“Gods would be aghast if they knew that children were suffering and getting sick in their name,” Singh said, responding to arguments linking firecrackers with religious practices, PTI reported.She also flagged difficulties in enforcing restrictions on the duration of firecracker use, arguing that limits on the number of hours allowed would have little impact without effective implementation.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
“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 on every street all the time,” Singh said.The amicus suggested referring the issue to the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), the statutory body responsible for air quality management in the region, so that it could examine the available material and associated medical concerns.The bench, however, cautioned against issuing directions that might be difficult to implement on the ground.“We have to be extremely careful in passing an order unless we are in a position to make it manageable and enforceable,” the Chief Justice said, adding that restrictive directions were often perceived as coercive.
