Clean Air for Whom? Reflections on the Supreme Court’s Question About a Delhi-Only Cracker Ban

Last week the Supreme Court asked a blunt, ethical question: why should restrictions on firecrackers be the preserve of Delhi’s residents while other cities—some worse off—remain untouched? Chief Justice B. R. Gavai’s observation that we cannot craft a pollution policy only for the “elite” of the national capital is less a legal provocation and more a moral mirror held up to the nation (The Hindu BusinessLine). The exchange and the court’s direction to seek scientific input from CAQM and NEERI make this conversation both urgent and, thankfully, evidence-oriented (The CSR Journal).

The question of equity — more than semantics

When a judge says “If citizens in NCR are entitled to clean air, why not people of other cities?” he is forcing us to confront a deeper truth: environmental policy is justice policy. Clean air cannot be an amenity rationed by geography or income. The Chief Justice drew a striking, human example—he saw worse winter pollution in Amritsar than in Delhi—and that personal observation punctures any comfortable narrative that Delhi’s problem is unique (Herald Goa).

Too often our debates treat pollution as a technological hiccup or a seasonal nuisance. But it is also a distributional problem: those who can afford purifiers, private travel, or temporary relocation are shielded; those who cannot—construction workers, street vendors, factory labourers—bear the health costs. As amicus curiae Aparajita Singh reminded the court, it is the poor who literally choke on bad air (Daily Guardian).

Livelihoods are not an afterthought

The moral urgency of clean air cannot level the lived realities of people whose incomes depend on an industry under threat. Firecracker manufacture and trade support many families. The Supreme Court’s own previous orders and recent enforcement actions have led to licence cancellations, sometimes cutting short permissions that ran for years—devastating for small units whose margins were already thin (Kemmannu).

This is where the debate must stop being binary. A blanket prohibition that ignores economic dislocation risks trading one injustice for another. The CJI himself recognised the duality: the need to protect public health must be weighed against the real economic fallout for the poor tied to the industry (The CSR Journal).

Science, standards and the promise of green crackers

The court’s sensible move—asking CAQM and NEERI for a technical roadmap and standards by September 22—signals a commitment to evidence rather than reflex (The CSR Journal). The idea of ‘green crackers’ has been floated before; the question now is whether they can be rigorously defined, tested, and regulated in a way that truly reduces harmful emissions without becoming a marketing label.

But even if green crackers reduce particulate or specific toxic emissions, they cannot be the only lever. Fireworks are one node in a complex mesh of pollution sources: stubble burning, vehicular emissions, industry, construction dust and seasonal meteorology all interact to create the air people breathe. A piecewise approach—ban here, allow there—will never address that systemic entanglement.

What a fair national approach might look like (in principle)

I am mindful of the line between reflection and policymaking; my intent here is to outline principled priorities rather than prescribe every technical fix. Any national framework should at least adhere to these commitments:

• Evidence-first: national standards for any permitted firecracker should be based on independent testing and open methodologies from institutions like NEERI and CAQM (The Hindu BusinessLine).
• Equity-sensitive implementation: transition support—financial, technical and social—must be available for workers and small manufacturers facing closure or retooling costs.
• Uniform baseline, local nuance: a pan-India baseline standard protects the right to clean air; local administrations must retain measured, transparent powers to tighten rules where epidemiology, meteorology and local industry require it.
• Broad source control: fireworks policy must sit inside a wider air-quality strategy that tackles agriculture residue burning, traffic emissions and industrial compliance.

A personal note on rights and responsibilities

I am struck by the tension between tradition and harm. Festivals, celebrations, the crackle of fireworks—these are cultural memories woven into family lives. Yet the right to celebrate cannot eclipse the right to breathe. That balance—between joy and justice, between custom and common good—is the delicate task of a plural, democratic polity.

Our institutions are trying to do the hard work: balancing competing rights, seeking technical clarity, and nudging policy from the ad hoc to the national. The Supreme Court’s insistence on an answer that is pan-India is less about judicial grandstanding and more about demanding coherence in how we treat citizens’ basic environmental entitlements (The Daily Guardian; Herald Goa).

An earlier voice: "Second Class Citizens?"

This debate is not new for me. In an earlier blog titled "Second Class Citizens?" I asked a blunt question: if judicial concern centers on Delhi’s air, does that imply residents of other cities are treated as lesser citizens? I wrote then, in direct terms: "If you live in any city other than Delhi, you are a second class citizen!" and urged wider judicial and policy attention to rising AQI levels across Indian cities.

That post (available here: https://myblogepage.blogspot.com/2016/01/second-class-citizens.html) also reflected a long-standing belief that the Supreme Court can, and should, act as a guardian for all citizens’ environmental health—sometimes through suo moto action—rather than confining remedies to a single metropolitan area. The sentiment echoes the Court’s recent questioning and underscores why a pan-India perspective matters.

Closing thought

If clean air is to be treated as a right, then we must be clear about two things: rights without pragmatic transition pathways can become instruments of harm; and transition without firm environmental standards can be tokenistic. The path forward needs both compassion for livelihoods and moral clarity on public health. Evidence-based national standards—coupled with tangible support for workers—offer the only legitimate way to reconcile those obligations.

I welcome the fact that expert bodies have been roped in and that the court is seeking a foundation in science. Let that science be thorough and transparent, and let our policy response be measured and humane.

---

Regards,
[Hemen Parekh]
Any questions? Feel free to ask my Virtual Avatar at hemenparekh.ai