NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY

COMMON LAW METHODS

TRIMESTER I

ANALYSIS OF

Arjun Gopal v. Union of India1

Full Bench

[Justice A.K Sikri, Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice Ashok Bhushan]

1
Last visited on Aug. 22, 2018.
Page 1 of 11
ACKNOWLEGEMENT

This paper has been made possible by the unconditional support of many people. I would like to acknowledge
and extend my heartfelt gratitude to Prof. (Dr.) Ghayur Alam for guiding me throughout the development of
this paper into a coherent whole by providing helpful insights and sharing his brilliant expertise. I would also
like to thank the officials of NLIU library, for helping me to find the appropriate research material. I am deeply
indebted to my parents, seniors and friends for all the moral support and encouragement.

Vatsla Shrivastava

Page 2 of 11
TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Material Facts
 Question of Law
 Arguments by Appellant(s)
 Arguments by Respondent(s)
 Concrete Judgment
 Ratio Decidendi

Page 3 of 11
MATERIAL FACTS

1. A petition was filed seeking relief against use of fireworks, prevention of harmful crop burning,
dumping of malba and other further steps towards environmental purity. They had urged for interim
relief in respect of fireworks that worsens the air quality standards of Delhi and NCR each year after
Diwali.
2. In the first judgement the court directed the central government to suspend all licenses that permit sale
of fireworks, wholesale and retail within the territory of NCR.
3. The manufacturers of fire crackers and the license holders filed applications for modification of the
said interim order.
4. In the next judgment, keeping in view that a complete ban on fireworks would be an extreme step that
might not be fully warranted by facts available, lifted the suspension of permanent licenses and directed
Delhi police and the states in the NCR to reduce the grant of temporary licences by 50% of that granted
the previous year and thus substantially reduce availability of firecrackers every year. It also prohibited
transport of firecrackers into Delhi and NCR from outside regions. It further ordered that the sale of
fireworks by the permanent licensees must be fully in compliance with the Explosives Rules.
5. In the present case, the petitioner prayed for the first order, which suspended issuance of licenses in
full, to be restored. The manufacturers and traders prayed for suspension to be lifted in its entirety. At
least one more year to bring their operations within the conformity of Rule 86 of Explosive Rules2.
6. The court, in the present case, addressed the hazardous situation created after Diwali every year and
ordered to suspend all licenses so that there is no further sale of firecrackers in Delhi and NCR and held
that further orders would be passed on assessing the emerging situation after Diwali. The court further
ordered to continued ban on transport of crackers from outside into Delhi and NCR. The court did not
accept the request to grant any more time for complying with the statutory provisions of Explosive
Rules.

2
Rule 86 of Explosive Rules prescribes safety distances to be maintained in factories or magazines, store houses and shops of
explosives.
Page 4 of 11
QUESTION OF LAW

1. Is it a just constitutional balance that environment and health prioritize over commercial rights of
traders and manufacturers?
2. Is a complete ban on fireworks an extreme step that might not be fully warranted by facts available to
the court?
3. Should the ban on sale and transport of firecrackers in Delhi and NCR be lifted in its entirety?
4. Can lack of scientific certainty be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental
degradation?
5. Since temporary license holders were allowed to operate within vicinity for many years, should they be
granted at least one more year to bring their operations in conformity with Rule 86 of Explosive Rules?

Page 5 of 11
ARGUMENTS BY APPELLANT(s):

1. The extensive use of fireworks during Diwali last year resulted in worsening of air quality standard of
Delhi and NCR. Onset of winter itself deteriorates air quality in this region and it gets aggravated
because of festival/marriage season that occurs during these very months. This had created an
unprecedented situation in Delhi, with air pollution going up at alarming levels and making it the most
polluted city in the world. Air pollution had gone up to 29 times above, the World Health Organisation
(WHO) standards. Therefore there is an urgent need for relief in terms of use of fireworks.
2. Nearly 20 years ago, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) took the stand that Sulphur in fireworks
should not be permitted as Sulphur on combustion produces Sulphur Dioxide which is extremely
harmful to health. The CPCB also stated that on Diwali the Sulphur Dioxide content in the air is
dangerously high. Moreover, all the above authorities were also unanimous in their view that crackers
should only be burst in designated places. Also the CPCB had specifically stated that joined crackers
should be banned by way of their letter dated November 04, 1996 to the Commissioner of Police.
Therefore the court should reconsider its order of permitting sale of Sulphur-containing firecrackers.
3. The order suspending the licences should be given one chance to test its effects during Diwali period.

Page 6 of 11
ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENT(S)

1. Since the temporary licence holders are allowed to operate within the vicinity for last number of years,
they should be granted at least one more year to bring their operations in conformity with the Rule 86
of Explosive Rules.
2. The number should not be reduced drastically by half and reduction should have been much lesser than
50% keeping the interest of traders and manufacturers in view.
3. Since manufacturers are having their depots where their stocks of fireworks are lying in the NCR, there
should be free flow of transportation of these fireworks between Delhi and NCR.
4. Bursting of firecrackers is not the only cause of air pollution. There were various other reasons behind
this phenomenon. The use of fireworks including fire crackers contributed negligibly in worsening the
air quality standards in Delhi and NCR.

Page 7 of 11
ARGUMENTS ACCEPTED
All three arguments of the Appellant(s) were accepted by Supreme Court.
The reason for accepting the first two arguments was that they present facts that strongly support the need for
ban of firecrackers during Diwali. The court acknowledged that health of the residents is of paramount
importance and that aggravated air pollution is witnessed each year after Diwali. Therefore it is reasonable to
restore the suspension of licenses for sale of firecrackers.
The court accepted the last argument of the Appellant(s) because it gives a logical view that the ban is needed
to be implemented at least once during Diwali to test its effectiveness.

Page 8 of 11
ARGUMENTS REJECTED
All four arguments of the respondent(s) were rejected by the Supreme Court.
The first argument was rejected because the Explosive Rules came into force in 2008 and were in operations for
9 years, therefore it is unreasonable for license holders to request any more time for compliance with the said
Rules.
The second and third arguments were rejected because it was clear that increase in air pollution due to use of
firecrackers is witnessed after Diwali each year. It was also acknowledged that firecrackers are a major source
of air pollution. In such scenario the request for further relaxation in sale of firecrackers was unreasonable.
The last argument was rejected on the ground that though various other factors contribute to air pollution but
there is direct evidence of deterioration of air quality due to firecrackers every year.

Page 9 of 11
CONCRETE JUDGMENT

1. No further time would be given to license holders for complying with the statutory provisions of
Explosive Rule.
2. The order dated 12 September 2017 shall not be effective during Diwali 2017 but shall be effective
only from 1 November 2017. Hence the request for allowing transport of fireworks in Delhi and NCR
stand disposed of.
3. The licenses already issued by police are suspended so that there may be no further sale of firecrackers
in Delhi and NCR.

Page 10 of 11
RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty cannot be used as
a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.
2. A just constitutional balance must prioritize the harmful effects of hazardous environment on present
and future generations over the immediate commercial constraints of traders.
3. When a rule is already in operation for a significant period of time, no further time would be granted for
complying with it.

Page 11 of 11