Delhi HC disposes of plea challenging ban on firecrackers observing 'Diwali is over'
Dec 13, 2021
New Delhi [India], December 13 : The Delhi High Court on Monday disposed of a plea challenging the ban on the sale of firecrackers, observing that there is "no reason to continue the hearing as the festival is over."
A Division Bench of Chief Justice of DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh disposed of the plea which was filed by Rahul Sanwariya and Tanveer before the Diwali festival.
The petition was filed through advocates Gautam Jha, Pankaj Kumar and Shweta Jha seeking direction to the authorities to consider Graded Regulations instead of a complete ban on firecrackers during the Diwali Festival.
According to the petition, the decision to ban all forms of firecrackers prior to about 1.5 months of Diwali was arbitrary and unreasonable.
"The action of the Respondent must be no more intrusive than is necessary to meet an important public purpose. No doubt Article 25 of the Indian Constitution is subject to Article 21 and it is not contested by the Petitioners, however, it is submitted by the Petitioners that the extent of the interference of the respondent by its decision/order is not proportionate to the ultimate aim and objective i.e. to curb the Pollution in the NCT of Delhi," read the petition.
The petition stated that the petitioners will be relying on the report presented by "The National Clean Air Programme, under the Ministry of Environment & Forest & Climate Change, on the issue of air pollution and the findings and data presented in the report to demonstrate that bursting of firecrackers is not among the 'major' source of pollutions in Delhi and NCR."
"It is certainly not the case of the petitioners that all categories of firecrackers are good, but petitioners are aggrieved by 'complete ban' on the storage, sale, and use of the firecrackers, since neither government data, nor the judgments on this subject advocate a complete ban, which makes the decision of Government of NCT Delhi as arbitrary, unreasonable and excessive," the petitioner had said.
