Repeated judicial directions on firecrackers in Delhi-NCR have yielded limited results. Examine the limits of judicial governance in environmental regulation.

In October 2026 the Supreme Court said its firecracker order in Delhi-NCR was being breached "left and right" and asked the government for enforcement data [1]. Since Arjun Gopal (2018), the Court has moved between bans and "test case" relaxations [2][3]. Courts can set norms under Article 21, but they cannot enforce those norms on their own.

Limits of judicial governance

• No enforcement machinery of its own: The Court depends on police, district officials and pollution boards. It had to ask officers to "forget their personal celebrations" and check compliance on the ground [1].
• Checks on the product, violations on the street: The 2025 order relied on NEERI-approved formulations, PESO licences, licensed traders and an e-commerce ban [2]. These checks work at the factory and the shop. They do not reach the lakhs of rooftops where crackers are actually burst.
• Dependence on technical evidence: The April 2025 order said the ban would be reconsidered only if green crackers were "scientifically shown" to cause minimal pollution [3]. But green crackers cut particulate matter by only about 30% [4]. If more crackers are burst, the air need not get cleaner.
• Case-by-case, episodic orders: Through continuing mandamus, the Court issues new orders from year to year. This creates uncertainty and lacks the steady feedback loop of a regulator.
• Limits on changing behaviour: The Court itself said "traders will go by supply and demand" and that "change has to come from within the people" [1].
• Pushing aside the expert regulator: CAQM has statutory power to issue binding directions [5]. Yet it is reduced to reporting compliance to the Court.

Way forward

• Bring crackers under GRAP: CAQM already imposes graded curbs, such as invoking Stage-II just before Diwali 2025 [6]. Permission for crackers should depend on the forecast AQI, the same way construction curbs do, as the petitioner argued [1].
• Measure results: The festival-period AQI monitoring by CPCB, ordered in 2025 [2], should be published daily along with enforcement figures.
• Nudges and local accountability: Use celebrity campaigns and community displays organised by resident welfare associations (RWAs), and make district officers answerable.

The judiciary is good at setting norms and raising alarms, but it is badly placed to run regulation day to day. Lasting results need a capable executive regulator, reliable data and public participation, with the Court as a guardian of last resort. This balance would protect the right to clean air, respect the separation of powers and advance SDG 11.6.