The Supreme Court has directed Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Haryana to implement a complete ban on firecrackers in the National Capital Region (NCR) under Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986.
The Supreme Court of India, on Tuesday, ordered the states of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Haryana to issue directions under Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, enforcing a complete ban on firecrackers in the National Capital Region (NCR). This directive came during the hearing of the MC Mehta case concerning air pollution in Delhi NCR due to various factors, including firecrackers and stubble burning.
Read also: Supreme Court Rejects 3-Judge Bench Demand for Death Penalty Appeals in Godhra Case
A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized that the ban on the manufacture, sale, storage (including online delivery), and bursting of all kinds of firecrackers must be enforced strictly in NCR. The Court noted that Delhi had already implemented a similar ban under Section 5 of the Act, and Haryana’s counsel confirmed that it had also issued directions under the same section.
Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 empowers the central government to issue written directions to any person, officer, or authority to enforce the Act’s provisions. This authority was delegated to the states of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Haryana in 1988, allowing them to take direct action under the Act.
The Court reiterated that its order dated April 3, 2025, had already directed a ban on the manufacture, sale, and use of firecrackers in Delhi NCR. Referring to Delhi's compliance affidavit, which mentioned the direction dated December 19, 2024, the Court confirmed that the ban must be maintained year-round.
The Court directed Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Haryana to implement similar bans under Section 5 of the Act. It also ordered all law enforcement agencies in these states to ensure strict compliance with the ban. Highlighting the importance of strict enforcement, the Court stated:
"We direct the states of UP, Rajasthan, and Haryana to issue similar directions under Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, in relation to the areas that fall under the NCR region. Not only the orders of this court but the directions issued under Section 5 of the EPA must be strictly implemented through all law enforcement machinery of the states."
The Supreme Court also instructed the states to create a compliance mechanism for the ban. Specifically, in Rajasthan, the responsibility for enforcement has been assigned to the Additional Director General of Police, Crime Branch. The Court acknowledged that Rajasthan has filed an affidavit detailing the steps taken to establish this enforcement machinery.
It emphasized that all state governments must ensure the effective implementation of the firecracker ban and must set up a robust compliance mechanism within one month. The Court stated:
"As expressed earlier, the state government shall not only ensure scrupulous implementation of the ban on firecrackers but also create machinery for effectively implementing the ban. This machinery must be established within a period of one month."
The Court further stressed that the directions issued under Section 5 must lead to logical conclusions, including the imposition of penalties under Section 15 of the Act. As amended by the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, Section 15 provides for monetary penalties for violations of the Environmental Protection Act.
The Court warned that failure to implement the directions could result in action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and stated:
"We make it clear that the directions issued under Section 5 of the Environment Protection Act must be taken to their logical conclusion by ensuring that penalties under Section 15 are imposed. Failure on the part of officials or other entities to implement the directions may lead to action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971."
The Supreme Court also directed the NCR states to file comprehensive compliance affidavits and ensure wide publicity of the firecracker ban and the penalties for violations. This measure is intended to increase public awareness and ensure adherence to the ban.
Additionally, the Court dismissed an interlocutory application (IA) challenging the firecracker ban in West Bengal. The Court clarified that the current case only concerns issues related to Delhi NCR, and all other prayers are kept open.
Case no. – WP (C) 13029/1985
Case Title – MC Mehta v. Union of India
