Courts in India have repeatedly held that environmental restrictions on festivals do not infringe religious freedom. Examine this with reference to Articles 21 and 25.

Article 25 protects freedom of religion "subject to public order, morality and health". Courts have read Article 21's right to life to include the right to clean air. When festival practices pollute, courts have consistently ruled for environmental limits. They have done so by treating these limits as controls on a source of pollution, not on a faith.

Article 25: why the restrictions survive

• The text itself sets a limit: religious freedom is expressly subject to health and to the other fundamental rights, including Article 21.
• Essential religious practices test: in In Re: Noise Pollution (2005), the Supreme Court held that Diwali is mainly about pooja, not firecrackers. It upheld a 10 pm–6 am ban on bursting crackers [1].
• Courts regulate; they do not prohibit: they limit the timing, noise and type of crackers, but leave the festival itself alone. In November 2026 the Bombay High Court said a bar on firecrackers does not take away anyone's right to celebrate [5].

Article 21: the positive basis

• Right to breathe clean air: Arjun Gopal v. Union of India (2017) linked citizens' health to suspending cracker licences in Delhi-NCR. It called crackers a major, though not the only, cause of pollution [2].
• Calibrated regulation:
• In April 2025 the Supreme Court refused to relax the NCR ban. It noted that green crackers cut emissions by only about 30% [3].

• In October 2025 it allowed only NEERI-registered, PESO-licensed green crackers and banned online sales. It asked CPCB and CAQM to report on the effect on air quality [4].

• Air is a shared resource: "Everyone breathes air." One person's ritual cannot impose health costs on others [5].

Concerns and limits

• Seen as selective: most cracker litigation centres on Diwali. This feeds the claim that one community is being targeted.
• Communal framing: the BMC removed Dia Mirza's eco-Deepavali video after objections to her religion. The High Court called this a "petty mindset" and ordered the video restored [5].
• Weak enforcement: compliance with time slots and green-cracker rules remains uneven on the ground.
• Doctrinal debate: it is still contested whether judges should decide what is "essential" to a religion.

Courts therefore treat Articles 21 and 25 as working together, not against each other: faith is protected, but polluting add-ons are not. The way forward is pollution rules that apply equally to every festival and all year round. These should be backed by awareness campaigns, cleaner alternatives and enforcement by urban local bodies, in line with the National Clean Air Programme and SDGs 3 and 11. This approach reflects constitutional morality, in which religious celebration and public health support each other.