Judicial regulation of firecrackers in Delhi-NCR has oscillated between prohibition and permission. Critically examine whether court-led interventions can substitute for coherent air-quality governance.

The Supreme Court reads the right to clean air into Article 21, and this has made it Delhi-NCR's de facto firecracker regulator. Its orders have moved between suspending sales, relaxing the rules, allowing only "green" crackers, and permitting short trial windows. This shows that courts can force action, but they cannot replace governance of the whole airshed.

Strengths of court-led intervention

• Fills the executive vacuum: In Arjun Gopal v. Union of India (2018), the Court allowed only reduced-emission/green crackers and fixed time slots for bursting [1]. No regulator had acted before this.
• Pushes technology: Judicial pressure led CSIR-NEERI to develop lower-emission formulations.
• Builds in accountability: The 2025 order allowed only QR-coded, NEERI-approved crackers, banned online sales and barred stock from outside the NCR. It also directed CPCB and state pollution boards to report on the impact [2].

Limitations

• Policy instability: Rules change almost every year, which leaves manufacturers, workers and consumers uncertain. "Public sentiment" now shapes the orders as much as evidence does.
• Narrow target: Crackers add a sharp festive spike. The baseline smog comes from stubble burning, vehicles, dust and winter inversion, and a festival order cannot touch these.
• Enforcement deficit: Courts have no field staff. Seizing fake "green" stock depends on police and pollution boards.
• Evidence gap: Emission-cut claims rest largely on the developer's own testing. The 2025 trial had no pre-set pass mark [2].
• Separation of powers: Orders issued festival by festival sideline expert, accountable bodies.

Elements of coherent governance

• Statutory anchor: The CAQM Act, 2021 lets the Commission restrict polluting activities. Its directions override those of states and the CPCB [3]. Cracker rules belong in its year-round plan and in GRAP.
• City-level targets: NCAP aims to cut PM10 by up to 40% by 2025-26 in 131 cities [4]. Cracker controls should feed into these city action plans.
• Credibility measures: The CPCB should test crackers bought from the market. Cracker workers need support to move to other livelihoods.

Court orders have protected public health when the executive did nothing, but they are reactive, seasonal and hard to enforce. The way forward is for the judiciary to act as a watchdog, not a substitute. CAQM and NCAP should lead with evidence-based, year-round airshed planning. That would secure the Article 21 right to clean air and progress on SDG 3.9 and SDG 11.6.