Firecracker Ban: Balancing Environmental Protection and Social Justice

Syllabus: GS2/Polity and Governance

Context

• The Supreme Court acknowledged that a complete firecracker ban could lead to illegal market capture by the mafia, citing a past example in Bihar’s mining industry.

About

• The SC called for a “balanced approach”, a policy that would ensure that the right to earn a livelihood in the firecracker industry would co-exist with the right to a clean environment without suffering from the after-effects of air pollution.
• The Bench directed the Environment Ministry to find a solution that would weigh in all the considerations. 
• Green Crackers Allowed: Meanwhile, the court allowed manufacturers, who have been certified by NEERI and PESO to produce green crackers, to continue their operations. 

Arguments in Favor of Ban

• Right to Clean Air: The constitutional framework established through landmark cases like M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) and Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana (1995) recognizes the right to live in a pollution-free environment as integral to Article 21.
  • This universality principle demands that environmental protection measures apply equitably across India.
• Health Hazards: Polluted air triggers respiratory diseases, asthma, bronchitis, especially in children and elderly.
  • Noise pollution causes hearing loss, stress, and sleep disturbance.
• Impact on Vulnerable Population: The health impacts disproportionately affect vulnerable populations.
  • The poor suffer most because they cannot afford air purifiers or seasonal migration to escape pollution. 
  • This creates an environmental justice paradox where those least able to protect themselves bear the greatest burden of pollution exposure.

Arguments Against

• Livelihoods: Firecracker industry (esp. Sivakasi, Tamil Nadu) employs ~5 lakh workers, mostly from economically weaker backgrounds.
  • Ban risks pushing workers into poverty, child labour, or unsafe informal jobs.
• Cultural & Religious Practices: Diwali, weddings, festivals, and processions have longstanding traditions of using fireworks.
  • Blanket bans raise concerns about freedom of religion and cultural rights.
• Economic Equity: Large, mechanised industries may adapt to these concerns like shifting to green crackers, but small units lack resources.
  • This increases the risk of market monopolisation by bigger firms.

Judicial & Policy Stand

• Supreme Court (2018, 2021, 2023 rulings):
  • Complete ban on toxic firecrackers.
  • Allowed only “green crackers” with reduced emissions.
  • Limited timing for bursting crackers (e.g., 8–10 pm on Diwali).
• National Green Tribunal (NGT): Directed states to curb sales in areas with poor AQI.
• MoEFCC & CSIR-NEERI: Developed “green crackers” with reduced emissions.

Balancing Both Dimensions

• Shift to Green Crackers: The government may promote scaling up the production of green crackers.
• Licensing & Monitoring: There should be strict enforcement on toxic cracker sales, certification for eco-friendly variants.
• Skill Diversification: The government may promote retraining programs for workers from the firecrackers industries  in renewable energy, LED, toy-making, packaging, etc.
• Financial Support: Mechanisms for soft loans, subsidies, and transition support for MSMEs can help businesses avoid losses.

Conclusion

• The firecracker ban highlights an environment vs. livelihood dilemma. 
• While environmental protection and public health are constitutional obligations, social justice demands safeguarding vulnerable workers’ rights. 
• A middle path — promoting green crackers, regulating usage, and supporting alternative livelihoods — is essential to reconcile environmental sustainability with social equity.

Source: TH