Virat Kohli for a cracker-free Diwali? Supreme Court suggests celebrity-led campaign to curb pollution

The Supreme Court has suggested involving prominent sportspersons, including India batter Virat Kohli, in a public awareness campaign to encourage people to celebrate a cracker-free Diwali, as it examined petitions concerning firecracker-related pollution and regulatory measures, India Today reported.

During a hearing on the issue, a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale observed that repeated annual directions to control pollution appeared to have had limited impact, with violations continuing despite restrictions.

The court also suggested that public figures with significant influence could help communicate the importance of celebrating Diwali without firecrackers, particularly in Delhi.

"Why can't you use the services of prominent personalities to make the public aware, like good sportsmen or public figures who are highly respected in any walk of life?" Justice Varale asked.

Justice Sundresh suggested that authorities could approach celebrated cricketers, including Kohli, to participate in an awareness campaign.

"For Delhi, if you can say, they will come and do. They will help you. Somebody like, you know, the celebrated cricketers like Virat Kohli or somebody, you can request him to make a segment that let us make this Diwali as one that is enjoyable. Let us enjoy the spirit of the festival of light. It's a festival of light," he said.

The judge also observed that fireworks were not originally associated with Diwali and became part of celebrations over time.

"As rightly said, it was not there originally. The problem came when the fireworks started coming. When gunpowder came, right from the 14th century, 15th century, this would have totally got in," he observed.

The Supreme Court is examining several aspects of firecracker regulation, including the permissible barium content in firecrackers. It said the issue would be taken up after Diwali.

Firecracker pollution: Petitioners seek complete ban

During the hearing, petitioner Gopal Sankaranarayanan told the bench that the government was seeking two weeks to complete its consultation process even as firecrackers continued to be sold and transported without restrictions.

He sought a complete ban on firecracker manufacturing, arguing that pollution caused by firecrackers posed a threat to the right to life. He also raised concerns about child labour and violations of storage regulations in the industry.

Amicus curiae Aparajita Singh told the Supreme Court that firecrackers release toxic gases and hazardous particulate matter, including PM2.5, which can enter the bloodstream and affect vital organs.

She cited doctors' observations about worsening lung health, including among children and non-smokers.

Singh also argued that several firecrackers marketed as green crackers were misleadingly labelled, with no reliable mechanism to verify their authenticity.

Even genuine green crackers, she said, emit around 30% less pollution than conventional firecrackers but are not pollution-free.

She urged the court to continue the ban until an effective regulatory framework is established.

Firecracker manufacturers oppose blanket ban

Appearing for firecracker manufacturers, advocate J Sai Deepak argued that a blanket ban was ineffective and had encouraged black-market sales, the smuggling of Chinese crackers and the sale of unlicensed products.

He said the industry was regulated under the Explosives Act and that manufacturers violating QR-code requirements should face action, including the cancellation of licences.

He also argued that pollution levels had fallen, but compliant manufacturers were being penalised for violations committed by others.

According to him, a blanket ban would not eliminate firecracker use and could instead encourage the sale of more harmful smuggled products.

SC questions Delhi government's pollution-control measures

The Supreme Court also questioned the Delhi government's preparedness and pollution-control measures, asking why only nine of the 39 monitoring stations were operational and what action had been taken following its earlier directions.

It sought details of inspections, enforcement teams and action against the illegal sale of firecrackers.

Representing the Delhi government and the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati told the court that air pollution was a genuine problem that authorities faced every year and that several measures were being implemented to address it.

She said the Delhi government had scheduled a plan to begin on November 1, under which vehicles entering the national capital from outside would be required to meet BS-VI emission standards.

Government office timings had also been changed to reduce traffic, while anti-smog guns had been deployed near construction sites.

Other measures included an anti-pollution plan, control centres and air wardens. A total of 608 anti-smog guns had been deployed, she said.

Bhati maintained that the government was better prepared to tackle pollution than it had been the previous year.

However, she acknowledged that air quality index (AQI) levels had been higher on days when firecrackers were permitted.