SC order on use and sale of firecrackers

• The Supreme Court has ordered a partial ban on the sale and use of firecrackers, ahead of Diwali next month.
• Hearing a bunch of petitions seeking a blanket ban on firecrackers to help curb air pollution, the court has allowed the use of “safer” firecrackers for a limited time period during festivals.

About Ban:

• Refusing a complete ban, the top court has permitted the use and sale of “greener” firecrackers which have low emission. Firecrackers with permissible decibel sound limits will be allowed to be sold in the market
• Firecrackers will be allowed to be burst for 2 hours, 8pm to 10pm on Diwali. For New Year and Christmas, the time allotted is 11.45 pm to 12.30 am.
• The Supreme Court has restrained E-commerce websites like Flipkart and Amazon from selling firecrackers which are beyond the permissible limit. Websites will attract contempt of court charges if they don’t adhere to court’s direction.
• Station house officers of police stations concerned will be held liable if banned firecrackers are sold in their areas.
• The apex court had earlier said there is a need to take into account all aspects, including the fundamental right of livelihood of firecracker manufacturers and the right to health of over 1.3 billion people in the country, while considering a plea for the ban.

Analysis:

• The question that arises is why the judiciary needs to intervene in administration when that is fundamentally the role of the representatives of the people. Often, this is because of a weak or tentative executive and legislature that fail to perform the constitutional duties.
• Article 21 of the Constitution gives every citizen the right to life including dignity and comfort in livelihood, and also a right to a clean habitable environment to live in. It is the job of the legislature and executive to ensure these fundamental rights for the people. And so often, these arms fail or are tentative in their duties to implement such fundamental rights for a number of varied reasons depending on the mindset and action plans in force.
• The judiciary, as a guardian, must then step in and ensure that these breaches are rectified or bottle necks cleared to prevent a crisis in the ecosystem.
• By not enforcing a complete ban, the court has tried to steer clear of interfering with any major executive decision or administrative policy. The court seems to recognise the severe incoming polluting conditions and merely attempts, in its own way, to help curb the spectre of severe environmental conditions. In doing so, it has tried to help the executive, who seemed in favour of a countermeasure (through the pollution control board), but lacked a certain bandwidth for implementation and enforcement.

By: Vishal