ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

26. It is stated on behalf of the Commissioner of Police in Delhi that the maximum quantity of fireworks permissible is I 00 kg in terms of Division 2, sub-division 2 of Schedule I of the Explosives Rules in respect of the fireworks mentioned therein (high hazard fireworks) and 500 kg under Division 2, sub-division I of Schedule I of the Explosives Rules in respect of the firfworks mentioned therein (low hazard fireworks).

27. The mandatory conditions laid down in the Explosives Rules are followed subject to the orders passed by this Court in Sadar Bazar Fire Works (Pu~ca Shop) Association v. Panktlj Traders & Ors. 3 The order passed in this case on I'' November. 199 3 reads as follows : "It appears that after this Court's order of 22"" October. 1993, the authorities have issued a circular dated 26. I 0.93 imposing ce1tain conditions in regard to which the petitioners have no objection, save and except Condition ii(a) which provides that the premises to be used for sale of crackers, etc. shall be at a minimum distance of 15 mtrs. from any such premises used for storage of similar explosives and hazardous materials. After some discussion at the Bar, Mr. Lahiri, the learned counsel for the respondents, states that appropriate instructions will be issued so that temporary licences arc not denied on the ground that the cracker shops are adjacent to each other. We have also indicated to Mr. Lahiri that what was intended was that if there is any shop adja~ent to the shops in respect of which licence is sought wherein any other highly inflammable and combustible material is being sold, that may be a factor which may weigh with the authority. In view of the statement made by Mr. Lahiri, we do not think it necessary to issue any direction. The proceedings will stand terminated with liberty to mention if there is any difficulty. The application for temporary licences should be processed without delay. The parties may be advised to complete the forms wherever there are deficiencies. With these observations, the Special Leave Petitions arc disposed of."

28. It is fmther submitted that permanent licences have been granted to 20 licensees as on date in Delhi and these have been suspended in view of the order passed by this Comt on 11" November. 2016 (the· corresponding figure for the NCR minus Delhi has not been given to us). 'SLP(C)Nos.17327-28/1993 ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

29. With regard to the grant of temporary licences, it is stated that in 2016 a total of I 073 applications were received for temporary licences and only 968 temporary licences were issued for a period of 24 days each (the corresponding figure for the NCR minus Delhi has not been given to us).

30. We were 'informed by the learned counsel for the Commissioner of Police that there is a prohibition on bursting fireworks between I 0.00 pm and 06.00 am and a prohibition on the bursting of fireworks in silence zones, that is an area not less than I 00 metres around hospitals, educational institutions, courts, religious places or any other area declared as such by the competent District Deputy Commissioner of Police.

31. An affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the CPCB on 29'" August, 2017 in which it is stated that during Diwali day. the level of metals/ constituents of fireworks indicated by PESO, that is aluminium, sulphur, potassium and barium arc elevated. Some other constituents, such as titanium, iron, copper, zinc, strontium, antimony and chlorine were found to be in higher concentration during Diwali day as compared to other days. But the higher level of these constituents is observed only for one day. According to the CPCB, to regulate and minimize the adverse effects of fireworks, smoke and pollutants on human health, the following actions would be of assistance: a. Constituents those mentioned in the specifications of PESO (year 2008) may only be permitted (Aluminium, Sulphur, Potassium and Barium). b. Other constituents unless permitted under specified notification, if any, may not be permitted. c. Health advisories by authorized Medical Institutions for public can be disseminated for public safoty.

32. With regard to our order of 31" July, 2017 on the use. of strontium in fireworks, the CPCB is of the view that only strontium chromate is ha1mful/ dangerous to human health and may cause problems with bone growth, skin rashes, skin problems and possibly lung cancer. The safe limits of strontium in the ambient air have not been mentioned by the CPCB.

33. On our asking, as a result of a submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the Union of India filed a Status Report on c c [2017] l I S.C.R. 31"August2017 with regard to the import of fireworks from China. It is stated that the import of any explosives containing sulphur or sulphurate in admixture with any chlorate is banned vide notification GSR No. 64(E) dated 27'" January, 1992 on the manufacture, possession, use, sale etc. of any explosives. However, an exception has been made for import in respect of the following: (a) in sll!lall quantities for scientific purposes; (b) for the purpose of manufacturing heads of matches; ( c) for use in toy amorces (paper caps for toy pistols): or (d) in percussion caps for use of Railway Fog Signals.

34. It is further stated that Chinese origin fire crackers generally contain the above banned chemicals and are, therefore, prohibited from import. In this regard, it is stated that approximatcly435 tons of Chinese origin fireworks have already been destroyed by the officials of the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, West Circle. Mumbai, but the period of destruction and the manner of destruction has not been stated. The Explosiv~ Act and Rules framed thereunder

35. The other perspective relates to licences issued for possession · and sale of fireworks under the Explosives Act, 1884 and Rules framed thereunder and continuing the ban on the sale of fireworks or limiting the possession and sale of fireworks. For this purpose, it is necessary to appreciate the scheme of the Explosives Act and the Rules so that appropriate remedial steps can be taken in accordance with the provisions of the law.

36. Section 4 of the Explosives Act, 1884 (for short 'the Act') contains various definitions. Section 4(d) defines the word 'explosive' and it includes, amongst others, fireworks. In this context, the classification of explosives is given in Schedule I to the Explosives Rules, 2008 (for short 'the Rules') and Class 7 thereof relates to fireworks which are categorized into divisions and classes. This reads as follows: Class 7 – Fireworks Class "(!)Fireworks Class has four divisions, namely, Division l, Division2, Division 3, and Division 4. (2) Division 1 comprises fireworks composition that is to say, any chemical compound or mechanically mixed preparation of . ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] an explosive or inflammable nature, which is used for the purpose of making manufactured firework, and is not an explosive of classes l ,2,3,4,5 & 6, any star and any coloured fire composition: Provided that a substantially constructed hermetically closed metal case, containing not more than 500 grammes of coloured fire composition of such a nature, as not to be liable to spontaneous ignition shall be deemed to be "a manufactured firework" and not a "firework composition". (3) Division 2 fireworks comprises manufactnred fireworks i.e., to say any explosive of class 1,2.3,4 or 6 and any fireworks composition when such explosive or composition is enclosed in c any case or contrivance or other articles specially adapted, for the production of pyrotechnic effect for pyrotechnic signal or sound signals. (4) Division 2 fireworks comprises 3 sub-divisions, namely, sub- division l, sub-division 2 and sub-division 3. (5) Sub-division I of Division 2 fireworks comprises low hazard fireworks which, in the opinion of Chief Controller are relatively innocuous in themselves and are not liable to explode violently or all at once, e.g., sparklers [Chinese crackers, serpents, etc.]. (6) Sub-division 2 ofDivision 2 offireworks comprises high hazard fireworks which, in the opinion of Chief Controller, present a special hazard to a person, e.g., rockets, shells, maroons, wheels, barrages, fountains, illumination pieces, distress signals, pyrotechnic devices etc. (7) Sub-division 3 of Division 2 fireworks comprises such fireworks, which arc assembled at site purely for the purpose of display. (8) Division 3 comprises any explosive contrivance required for the manufacture of manufactured fireworks, e.g., quick match fuse, micro cord fuse, etc. (9) Division 4 comprises manufactured fireworks for use of Armed Forces of the Union."

37. Section 5 of the Act confers the power to make Rules as to licensing of the manufacture, possession, use, sale, transport, import and c [20 l 7] l 1 S.C.R. export of explosives. Quite naturally, the Rules framed under the Act also deal with fireworks.

38. For the present, we are concerned only with ce11ain provisions of the Rules. Rule 2(19) defines "display fireworks" as a group of authorized manufactured fireworks assembled at site. solely for the purpose of display.

39. Rule 2(24) defines "fireworks" as low hazard explosive comprising of any composition or device manufactured with a view to produce coloured fire or flame, light effect, sound effect, smoke effect' (coloured or natural), or combination of such effects and includes fog- signals. fuses, rockets, shells, percussion caps.

40. Rule 2(25) defines "fireworks composition" as any chemical compound or mechanically mixed preparation of an explosive or inflammable substance that is used for the purpose of making manufactured fireworks and is not included in any other class of explosives, and includes any star or colored fire composition.

41. Finally, Ruic 2(32) defines "manufactured fireworks" as low hazard explosive contrivance containing explosive or combination of different classes, namely, Class 1 or Class 2 or Class 3 or Class 4 or Class 6 given in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of these rules or any explosives that come under Division 2 or Division 3 or Division 4 under Class 7 given under the said Part.

42. Ruic 4 qeals with the classifications of explosives and as far as fireworks are concerned, they are categorized into sound emitting fireworks, colour or light emitting fireworks, display fireworks and fireworks for export purposes. We are concerned only with the first three categories of fireworks and they are explained as follows: "4. Classification of explosives.-( I) For the purposes of these rules, the explosives shall be classified in the manner specified in Schedule I. The dual system of classification shall be retained for five years from the date of commencement of these Rules, thereafter only UN classification shall be applicable. (2) Jfany explosive falls within the limits of more than one class as defined in Schedule I, it shall be deemed to belong exclusively to the last number of such classes. ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] (3) The fireworks are classified into the following categories depending upon the desired pyrotechniquc effect :- (i) Sound emitting fireworks.-Fireworks with sound level not exceeding 125 dB (AI) or 145 dB (C) pk at 4 meters distance from the point ofbursting. For individual fire-<: racker constituting the series Goincd fire-crackers), the above mentioned limit be reduced by 5 log I O(N) dB, where N = number of crackers joined together; (ii) Colour or light emitting fircworks.-such fireworks which emit colour or light and having sound level not exceeding 90 dB (AI) at 4 m distance from the point of bursting; c (iii) Display Fireworks.-Any product of fireworks assembled at the site for the purpose of display including shell of diameter exceeding 25 mm, multiple shots or cake products ofany diameter exceeding 25 nos., of shots in a product and lance network or other products as approved by the Chief Controller."

43. Ruic 9(5) provides that possession of fireworks, not exce.eding one hundred kilogram for own use and not for sale does not require any licence to be issued, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 7 of the Rules.

44. Rule 15 relates to marking on explosives and packages. As per sub-Rule (i), (ii) and (iii) thereof, packages of fireworks shall contain the following markings in a conspicuous indelible character, by means of a stamping, embossing or painting: The relevant portion of this Rule . reads thus: "15. Marking on explosives and packages.- ( I) Marking on packages. – (i) The outer package shall be marked in conspicuous indelible character, by means of a stamping, embossing or painting with- ( a) the word "EXPLOSIVES"; (b) the name of authorised explosive; ( c) the number if any of the Class and the Di vision including sub-division to which it belongs; (d) the safety distance category of explosive; (2017] 11 S .. C.R. ( e) the name of the manufacturer; (f) identification numberofthe package: (g) the n¢t weight of explosives; (h) gross weight of the package; (i) date of manufacture and batch number; c U) UN Classification and UN Identification number (for export packages); (k) in case of plastic explosives, the words "marking agent added as per International Civil Aviation Organisation ResolutionA27- 8" referred in sub-clause (iv) of clause ( c) under sub-rule (2) of rule lO; and (I) a paper slip containing the above details shall be kept inside the package: Provided that in the case of safety fuse or fireworks, clauses (a) and (!) may be omitted and the words "safety fuse" or "Fireworks" shall be marked. (ii) In case of fireworks, the names of the items, for example – amorces, paper caps, serpents eggs, etc., as appropriate shall be marked. (iii) Evecy manufacturer shall on the box of each fire cracker shall mention details ofits chemical content, sound level and that it satisfies requirements as laid down by the Chief Controller. Fire-cracker meant for export shall have a different colour packing from those intended to be sold in India and a clear print indicating that they are not to be sold in India." Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 15 of the Rules is also of some importance and this reads as fo Hows: "(4) Marking on fireworks.- In case of fireworks, explosive composition, quantity of such composition, whether sound emitting crackers or colour or light emitting crackers, sound level, a caution or warning indicating the name of the item, manufacturer's name, method of firing and precautions to be taken both in words and pictorial view shall be printed on each piece of fireworks and cardboard box and where adequate space is not available on the ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] fireworks, such caution or warning shall be printed on a separate label and inserted in ·the smallest packet or carton."

45. Chapter VII of the Rules relates to special provisions for possession, sale and use of explosives. Rule 75 therein provides for a permit to be issued for temporary possession of manufactured fireworks in excess of the licensed quantity and this provides that a permit for a period not exceeding thirty days may be granted by the licensing authority to a licensee for fireworks shop to possess one-third in excess of the licensed quantity on receipt of the appropriate fees.

46. Rule 84 of the Rules provides for temporary shops for possession and sale of fireworks during festivals and this reads: "84. Temporary shops for possession and sale of fireworks during festivals.-During festivals, the District Magistrate may issue temporary licences for possession and sale of fireworks in a temporary shop subject to the following conditions, namely :- ( 1) The fireworks shall be kept in a shed made ofnon-flammable material, which is closed and secured so as to prevent unauthorised persons having access thereto. (2) The sheds for possession and sale of fireworks shall be at a distance of at least three metres from each other and fifty metres from any protected work. (3) The sheds shall not face each other. (4) No oil burning lamps, gas lamps or naked lights shall be used in the shed or within the safety distance of the sheds. Electrical lights, if used, shall be fixed to the wall or ceiling and shall not be suspended by flexible wire. Switches for each shop shall be fixed rigidly to the wall and a master switch shall be provided for each row of sheds. (5) Display of fireworks shall not be allowed within fifty metres of any shed. (6) In one cluster not more than fifty shops shall be permitted."

47. Chapter VIII of the Rules relates to the grant or refusal of approval, no objection certificate, licence, certificates, amendment, transfer and renewal oflicences. Rule 99 therein provides that licences and certificates, for a specific purpose may be granted by the authorities, specified in Part I of Schedule IV of the Rules. c (2017] ll S.C.R.

48. Rule I 06 provides for the period of validity of the licence granted under the Rule while Ruic 113 provides for documents to be furnished for approval and grant of a licence and the relevant Form required to be filled up by an applicant.

49. Schedule IV referred to in Rule 99 of the Rules, particularly Part I thereofis required to be read with Ruic 113 of the Rules and from a perusal of items 5 and 6 thereof, the limits for possession and sale of fireworks, the relevant licensing application form and the licensing authority arc indicated.

50. Learned counsel for the applicant informed us through a note c that as of date, in the NCR, PESO has issued 435 permanent licences and in Delhi alone, PESO has issued 175 permanent licences, thereby making a total of 610 permanent licences. It is further stated that the stocks in hand of the fireworks in the N.CR both under permanent and temporary licences is 50,00.000 kg in the NCR and 1,00,000 kg in Delhi. What more needs to be done

51. What is necessary now is to correlate air pollution with the sale and bursting of fireworks in Delhi and the NCR. There is no doubt that the air we breathe gets polluted with the bursting of fireworks. The extent of air pollution caused by bursting fireworks is not clear in the absence of empirical data – it could be severe or it could be marginal, but it is there.

52. Have the steps already taken by the concerned authorities reduced air pollution during Diwali'! It seems to us that the steps so far taken by the Government ofNCTofDelhi are limited to issuing directions, which is merely paperwork. Only general directions have been given in the past to schools to sensitize the students and the staff as to the ill- cffeets and health hazards of bursting fireworks. No specific plan of . i1ction has been laid down by the Government of NCT of Delhi to make children aware of the hazards of bursting fireworks and the existing awareness campaigns have been allowed to drift over the last one year. There is no information on the success or failure of these campaigns.

53. The response of the Government ofNCT ofDelhi is lethargic with the absence of any keenness to take proactive steps. This is disconcerting. It is high time that governmental authorities realize that the cost of ill health (particularly among children) is far greater in psycho- social terms than in financial and economic terms. The adage that ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] 'prevention is better than cure' is fully applicable in the present circumstances.

54. Similarly, the Delhi Police has issued directions that are difficult to enforce such as restricting the time during which fireworks can be burst. These are ad hoc mea~ures that might be workable (if at all) only for the immediate future. We have not been informed of the impact of B , such.directions or their implementation.

55. We must note that there has been no response from the States within the NCR giving the impression that air pollution is not a problem for the State Governments despite the ill-effects and health hazards of bursting firewo.rks.

56. There must be a concerted effort by the powers that be to ensure awareness and sensitization of the people in Delhi and NCR, particularly children, of the health hazards of indiscriminate use of fireworks. Unless urgent steps are taken, there could be an adverse impact on the health of children and this would be to nobody's benefit but to everybody's detriment. Anybody who lived in Delhi during Diwali in 2016 and soon thereafter would have experienced 'the choking effects of breathing in polluted air and the tremendous increase in the use and sale of face masks t\!ld air purifiers. In the absence of any concerted plan of action implemented by the governmental authorities, the residents responded in an ad hoc manner by purchasing face masks and air purifiers. There is no doubt that an effective and longer lasting solution 1s necessary.

57. What has really disturbed us is that the CPCB was directed on 11 ''November, 2016 to study and prepare a report within three months c on the harmful effects of the materials used in the manufacture of F fireworks: It is astonishing that the CPCB has not conducted the study' and prepared a report as directed. Apart from the fact that the CPCB has not conducted any study, even otherwise, no standards have been laid down by the CPCB which could give any indication of the acceptable and permissible limit of constituent metals or chemicals used in fireworks and released in the air, beyond which their presence would be harmful ·.or dangerous. There cannot be any donbt ihat the presence of certain metals or chemicals in the air beyond a particular limit would be_ inadvisable but that limit is not known to anybody including the CPCB . .Therefore, any discussion on the subject of whether there is an excessive presence of a particular chemical in the air will not yield any result unless c [2017] l l S.C.R. some authority lays down an acceptable standard of what is excessive and what is not. Dr. Akolkar, Member Secretary of the CPCB had informed us on 31" July, 2017 that the CPCB would be in a position to lay down the standards by 15~ September, 2017. We do hope the CPCB docs so -in any case as a part of the continuing mandamus principle laid down by this Collrt, the matter is required to be followed up.

58. What is also worrying. apart from the absence of standards or limits having been laid down by the CPCB, is that very little or no attention seems t() have been paid by any of the governmental authorities to the possible health hazards faced by children due to exposure to chemicals in fireworks. The governmental authorities need to realize their responsibility regarding the care and protection of the health of the people in Delhi and NCR and the importance of launching a sustained campaign to reduce air pollution to manageable limits during Diwali and the period immediately thereafter. The health of children should be of foremost concern in this regard. It is, as submitted, only a matter of a few days of intense pollution but even that is capable of having long term health effects. There are also short-term adverse consequences of breathing in polluted air and even this cannot be overlooked by the governmental authorities, particularly in the case of children.

59. On 31 '1 July, 2017 we had prohibited the use of five chemicals and their compounds in the manufacture of fireworks. These constituents are antimony, lithium, mercury, arsenic and lead. We had left open the issue of use of ~trontium and its compounds in the manufacture of fireworks. During the course of submissions on the issue of whether the use of strontium should be permitted in fireworks and the application for modification or vacation of the interim order, our attention was drawn to an article in the Swarajya magazine, by one Srikanth Ramakrishnan who reported that the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) along with researchers from an organization based in Austria, namely, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis {IJAS) had conducted a study whose results revealed that the majority of the pollution in Delhi comes from outside the NCT of Delhi and from other areas in the NCR in Uttar Pradesh and Haryana. Therefore, no matter what air quality standards are adopted in Delhi, pollution would flow in from the neighbouring States in any case. The report prepared by NEERI and the HAS has not been made available to us. ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

60. Be that as it may, the CPCB has now concluded that only strontium chromate is harmful or dangerous to human health. Therefore, we have no option but to prohibit the use of strontium chromate in the manufacture of fireworks.

61. It was submitted by Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned counsel appearing for one of the respondents that the best possible solution to the problem of air pollution in Delhi, allegedly due to the bursting of fireworks, would be to constitute a Committee to advise this Court. It was submitted that when the issue of noise pollution had surfaced, the CPCB had set up the National Committee on Noise Pollution and Control in 1997 which led to noise pollution standards being set. It was suggested that a similar exercise may be undertaken to deal with the issue of air pollution due to bursting of fireworks in Delhi. This was precisely the purpose of issuing a direction to the CPCB on 11 'h November, 2016 but that was not taken seriously. Therefore, in our opinion, the suggestion dcserve.s acceptance and it is necessary to set up such a Committee with the assistance and guidance of the CPCB and the FDRC. The Committee can quite effectively conduct a study along with assistance and inputs from other bodies or organizations and make recommendations. It may be appropriate to appoint a Committee including officers at the appropriate level from the National Physical Laboratory, Delhi, the Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences, Timarpur, Delhi, the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, scientists from the State Pollution Control Boards, the Fire Development and Research Centre, Sivakasi and Nagpur and the National Environment Engineering Research Institute (NEERI).

62. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the poor air quality in November 2016 justified the passing of the interim order on 1J 1h November, 2016 and there was no reason to vary that order. Virulent air pollution is a cause of concern and the only remedy to stop its ill effects is to continue the suspension oflicences for the sale of fireworks in Delhi and in the NCR. It was submitted that if there is any doubt regarding the effect of bursting fireworks on air pollution, and in the absence of any standards to measure the same, the safer course would be to continue such suspension rather than risk the health oflarge sections of people in Delhi and the NCR, particularly children. c c [2017] I l S.C.R.

63. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in Co11sumer Ed11catio11 & Research Ce11tre v. U11io11 of J11dia4 it was held by this Court that the right to health, though of a worker, is a fundamental right. We sec no real difference between the fundamental right to health of a worker and the human right to health of any other citizen of the country, particularly children who perhaps need more care and attention. It was held in paragraph 24 of the Report: 'The right to health to a worker is an integral facet of meaningful right to life, to have not only a meaningful existence but also robust health and vigour without which worker would lead life of misery. I.,ackofhealth denudes him of his livelihood. Compelling economic necessity to work in an industry exposed to health hazards due to indigence to bread-winning for himself and his dependants, should not be at the cost of the health and vigour of the workman. Facilities and opportunities, as enjoined in Article 38, should be provided to protect the health of the workman. Provision for medical test and treatment invigorates the health of the worker for higher production or efficient service. Continued treatment, while in service or after retirement is a moral, legal and constitutional concomitant duty of the employer and the State. Therefore, it must be held that the right to health and medical care is a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Articles 39(e), 41 and 43 of the Constitution and make the life of the workman meaningful and purposeful with dignity of person. Right to life in¢ludes protection of the health and strength of the worker and is a minimum requirement to enable a person to live with human dignity."

64. A similar view was expressed in Occupatio11a/ H ea/th & Safety As.m. v. Union of llldia' when it was held in paragraph 10 of the Report: "Right to health i.e. right to live in a clean, hygienic and safe environment is a right flowing from Article 21. Clean surroundings lead to healthy body and healthy mind. But, unfortunately, for eking out a livelihood and for national interest, many employees work in dangerous, risky and unhygienic environment. Right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life —— ' (1995) 3 sec 42 '(20I4J 3 sec 547 ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 85 l [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] breath from the directive principles of State policy, particularly clauses (e)and {t) of Articles 39, 41 and42. Those articles include protection of health and strength of workers and just and humane conditions of work. Those are minimum requirements which must exist to enable a person to live with human dignity. Every State has an obligation and duty to provide at least the minimum condition ensuring human dignity."

65. Under the circumstances, there can be no doubt that the residents of the NCT of Delhi and indeed the entire NCR are entitled to breathe unpolluted air. They arc entitled to the protection of their health from the ;1dverse consequences ofbreathing in air polluted by the bursting of fireworks.

66. The right to breathe clean air is a recognized right under our Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to paragraphs J 6 and 17 of Ve/lore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. U11io11 of J111Jiu6 which read as follows: "The constitutional and statutory provisions protect a person's right to fresh air, clean water and pollution-free environment, but the source of the right is the inalienable common law right of clean environment. It would be useful to quote a paragraph from c · Blackstone!s commentaries on the Laws of England (Commentaries on the Laws of England of Sir William Blackstone) Vol. III, fourth edition published in 1876. Chapter XIII, "OfNuisance" depicts the law on the subject in the following words: "Also, if a person keeps his hogs, or other noisome animals, or allows filth to. accumulate on his premises, so near the house ·F of another, that the stench incommodes him and makes the air unwholesome, this is an injurious nuisance, as it tends to deprive him ofthe use and benefit of his house. A like injury is, if one's neighbour sets up and exercises any offensive trade; as a tanner's, a tallow-chandler's, or the like; for though these are lawful and necessary trades, yet they should be exercised in remote places; for the rule is, 'sic utere tuo, ut alienum non lcadas'; this therefore is an actionable nuisance. And on a similar principle a constant ringing of bells in one's immediate neighbourhood may be a nuisance. —– "(1996)5SCC647 c (2017] ll S.C.R. … With regard to other corporeal hereditaments; it is a nuisance to stop or divert water that used to run to another's meadow or mill; to corrupt or poison a watercourse, by erecting a dye-house or a lime-pit, for the use of trade, in the Upper part of the stream; to pollute a pond. from which another is entitled to water his cattle; to obstruct a drain; or in short to do any act in common property, that in its con~equences must neccssanly tend to the prejudice of one's neighbour. So closely does the law ofEngland enforce that excellent rule of gospel-morality, of'doing to others, a' we would they should do unto ourselves'." Our legal system having been founded on the British common law the right of a person to a pollution-free environment is a part of the basic jurisprudence of the land."

67. The right to health coupled with the right to breathe clean air leaves no manner of doubt that it is important that air pollution deserves to be eliminated and one of the possible methods of reducing it during Diwali is by continuing the suspension oflicenccs for the sale of fireworks and therefore implicitly, prohibiting the bursting of fireworks.

68. In our considered opinion, continuing the suspension oflicences might be too radical a step to take for the present -a graded and balanced approach is necessary that will reduce and gradually eliminate air pollution in Delhi and in the NCR caused by the bursting of fireworks. At the same time it is necessary to ensure that injustice is not caused to those who have already been granted a valid permanent licence to possess and sell fireworks in Delhi and the NCR. The graded and balanced approach is not intended to dilute our primary concern which is and remains the health of everybody and the human right to breathe good quality air or at least not be compelled to breathe poor quality air. Generally speaking, this must take precedence over the commercial or other interest of the applicant and those granted a permanent licence to possess and sell fireworks.

69. But, from the material before us, it cannot be said with any great degree of certainty that the extremely poor quality ofair in Delhi in November and December 20 J 6 was the result only of bursting fireworks around Diwali. Certainly. there were other causes as well, but even so the contribution of the bursting of fireworks cannot be glossed over. Unfortunately, neither is it possible to give an accurate or relative ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] assessment of the contribution of the other identified factors nor the contribution of bursting fireworks to the poor air quality in Delhi and in the NCR. Consequently, a complete ban on the sale of fireworks would be an extreme step that might not be fully warranted by the facts available to us. There is, therefore, some justification for modifying the interim order passed on 11 ''November, 2016 and lifting the suspension of the permanent licences.

70. At the same time, it cannot be forgotten that admittedly there is a huge quantity of fireworks in Delhi and in the NCR and the figure has been provided to us by the applicant. Similarly, there can be no doubt that the Delhi Police had issued a large number of temporary licences in 2016 and it would not be unreasonable to assume that around and during D.iwali, there would have been some illegal temporary shops set up, whether known or not known to the police. We do not have the figures with regard to the NCR, but we assume that like in Delhi, a large number of temporary licences ha vc been issued for the possession and sale of fireworks. Therefore, there is a need to regulate the availability and sale of fireworks in Delhi and the NCR. Directions

71. As mentioned above, the health of the people in Delhi and in the NCR must take precedence over any commercial or other interest of the applicant or any of the permanent licensees and, therefore, a graded regulation is necessary which would eventually result in a prohibition. Taking all factors into consideration, we are of the view that the following orders and directions arc required to be issued and we do so: (I) The directions issued by this Court in Sadar Bazt1r Fire Works (Puau Shop) Association' shall stand partially modified to the extent that they are not in conformity with the Explosives Rules which shall be implemented in full by the concerned authorities. Safety from fire hazards is one of our concerns in this regard. (2) Specifically, Rule 15 relating to marking on explosives and packages and Rule 84 relating to temporary shops for possession and sale of fireworks during festivals of the Explosives Rules shall be strictly enforced. This should not be construed to mean that the other Rules need not be enforced – all Rules should be 'SLP (C) No. 17327-28/1993 decided on I" November, l 993 c c [2017] l 1 S.C.R. enforced. But iftlle fireworks do not conform to the requirements of Rules ! 5 and 84, they cannot be sold in the NCR, including Delhi and this prohibition is absolute. (3) The qirections issued and restrictions imposed in the order passed by this Court on 18"' July, 2005 in Noise Pol/11tio11 (V) shall contmuc to be in force. ( 4) The concerned police authorities and the District Magistrates will ensure that fireworks arc not burst in silence zones that is, an area at least I 00 meters away from hospitals, nursing homes, prima1y and district health-care centres, educational institutions, com1s, religious places or any other area that may be declared as a silence zone by the concerned authorities. (5) The Delhi Police is directed to reduce the grant of temporary licences by about 50% of the number oflicences granted in 2016. The number of temporary licences should be capped at 500. Similarly, the States in the NCR arc restrained from granting more than 50% of the number of temporary licences granted in 2016. The area of distribution of the temporary licences is entirely for the authorities to decide. (6) The Union of India will ensure strict compliance with the Notification GSR No. 64(E) dated 27'' January, 1992 regarding the ban on import of fireworks. The Union oflndia is at liberty to update and revise this notification in view of the passage of time and' further knowledge gained over the last 25 years and issue a fresh notification, if necessary. (7) The Department of Education of the Government ofNCT of Delhi and the corresponding Department in other States in the NCR shall immediately formulate a plan of action, in not more than 15 days, to reach out to children in all the schools through the school staff, volunteers and NGOs to sensitize and educate school children on the health hazards and ill-effects of breathing polluted air, including air that is polluted due to fireworks. School children should be encouraged to reduce, if not eliminate, the bursting of fireworks as a part of any festivities. (8) The Government of NCT of Delhi and other States in the NCR may consider interaetingwith established medical institutions for issuing advisories cautioning people about the health hazards of bursting fireworks. ARJUN GOPAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] (9) The interim direction issued by this Court on 31" July, 2017 prohibiting the use of compounds of antimony, lithium, mercury, arsenic and lead in the manufacture of fireworks is made absolute. Jn addition, the use of strontium chromate in the manufacture of fireworks is prohibited. (I 0) Fireworks containing aluminium, sulphur; potassium and barium may be sold in Delhi and in the NCR, provided the composition already approved by PESO is maintained. It is the responsibility of PESO to ensure compliance of the standards it bas formulated. ( 11) Since there are enough fireworks available for sale in Delhi and the NCR, the transport of fireworks into Delhi and the NCR from outside the region is prohibited and the concerned law enforcement authoriiics will ensure that there is no further entry of fireworks into Delhi and the NCR till further orders. In our opinion, even 50,00,000 kg of fireworks is far more than enough for Dussehra and Diwali in 2017. The permanent licensees are at liberty to exhaust their existing stock of fireworks in Delhi and the NCR and, iftbat is not possible, take measures to transport the stocks outside Delhi and the NCR. ( 12) The suspension of permanent licences as directed by the order dated 11 'h November, 2016 is lifted for the time being. This might require a review after Diwali depending on the ambient air quality post Diwali. However, it is made explicit that the sale of fireworks by the permanent licensees must conform to the directions given above and must be fully in compliance with the Explosives Rules. We were informed that the permanent licences were issued by PESO and therefore the responsibility is on PESO to ensure compliance. ( 13) While lifting the suspension on the permanent licences alrc;1dy granted, we put these licensees on notice for Dusse.hra and Diwali in 2018 that they will be permitted to possess and sell only 50% of the quantity permitted in 2017 and that this will substantially reduce over the next couple of years. The permanent licensees are at liberty to file objections to this proposed direction within 30 days from today and thereafter the objections if any will be beard and decided. If no objections arc filed, this direction will become absolute without any further reference to any licensee. c c of. (2017] l l S.C.R. ( 14) Since there is a lack of clarity on the safety limits of various metals and constituents used in fireworks. a research study must be jointly carried out by the CPCB and the FDRC laying down appropriate standards for ambient air quality in relation to the bursting of fireworks and the release ofthelf constituents in the air. While Schedule VII of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 d1Jes deal with severnl metals, but as we have seen there are several other metals or constituents of fireworks that have not been studied by the CPCB and no standards have been laid down with regard to the concentration of these metals or constituents in the ambient air. The CPCB has assured us that it will complete the exercise by 15" September, 2017 but keeping in mind its track record subsequent to the order dated 11 '' November, 2016 this does not seem possible. Therefore, we grant t,ime to the CPCB to come out with definite standards on or before 30" September, 2017. (15) Ira any event, a research study also needs to be conducted on the impact of bursting fireworks during Dusschra and Diwali on the, health of the people. We, therefore, appoint a Committee to be chaired by the Chairperson of the CPCB and consisting of officers at the appropriate level from the National Physical Laboratory, Delhi. the Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences, Timarpur, Delhi, the Indian Institute ofTechnology- Kanpur, scientists from the State Pollution Control Boards, the Fire Development and Research Centre, Sivakasi and Nagpur and the National Environment Engineering Research Institute (NEER!) nominated by the Chairperson of the CPCB to submit a report in this regard prcforably on or before 31" December, 2017. (16) Keeping in mind the adverse effects of air pollution, the human right to breathe clean air and the human right to health, the Central Government and other authorities should consider encouraging display fireworks through community participation rather than individnal bursting of fireworks.

72. With the above directions, I.A. No. 52448of2017 is disposed Nidhi Jain I.A. disposed of.