Page |1

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SINDHIA

WRIT PETITION NO. 0907 OF 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

AYUB KHAN ) PETITIONER NO. 1

GOPAL SHARMA ) PETITIONER NO. 2

ANIL YADAV ) PETITIONER NO. 3

VERSUS

UNION OF SINDHIA ) RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

 Page |2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SR.N TOPIC PG. NO
O
1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 3
1.A List of Abbreviations 3
1.B Bibliography 4
1.C Webliography 4
1.D Case Laws Cited 5
1.E Statutes 5
2. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6
3. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7
3.A Background 7
3.B The Supreme Court 7
4. STATEMENT OF ISSUES 8
5. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9
6. ARGUMENTS 12
6.A Whether the fundamental right to health and safe 12
environment of the petitioners stated under Article 21 of the
Constitution of Sindhia has been violated?
6.B Will a total ban or prohibition on firecrackers be 14
unreasonable, and against the fundamental right stated
under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on free trade and business?
6.C Can a total ban or prohibition on firecrackers be imposed 18
or not?
7. PRAYERS 20
 Page |3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
SR. NO. ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSIONS
1. A.I.R All India Report

2. Cr. LJ Criminal Law Journal

3. S.C.C Supreme Court Cases

4. H.C.C High Court Cases

5. Ors. Others

6. Anr. Another

7. HC High Court

8. SC Supreme Court

9. IPC Indian Penal Code

10. Cr.Pc Criminal Procedure Code

11. Bom Bombay

12. CPC Civil Procedure Code

13. U/s Under Section

14. UOI Union of India

15. NRCB National Crime Report Bureau

16. F.I.R First Information Report

17. Hon’ble Honourable

18. LR Law Report

19. v. Versus

20. i.e. That Is

 Page |4

21. Govt. Government

22. NCT National Company Territory

23. S/o Son Of

24. & And

25. Art Article

26. u/a Under Article

27. Ltd. Limited

28. Co. Company

29. Corp. Corporation

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Constitutional Law of India Dr. J. N. Pandey

2. Code of Civil Procedure Dr. Avtar Singh

3. The Code of Criminal Procedure Ratanlal and Dhirajlal

4. The Indian Penal Code Ratanlal and Dhirajlal

5. Professional's Manual Of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 Justice M.R.Mallick

WEBLIOGRAPHY

1. www.scconline.com

2. www.manupatra.com

3. www.westlaw.org

4. www.indiankanoon.com
 Page |5

5. www.lexisnexis.com

6. www.judis.nic.in

7. www.indianlegalservice.com

8. www.wikipedia.com

9. www.lexology.com

10. www.lexrepository.com

CASE LAWS CITED

 Arjun Gopal and others v/s Union of India and others; (2017) 1 SCC 412
 Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka; (1995) 1 SCC 574
 Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India; AIR 1978 SC 597
 M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath; (2000) 6 SCC 213; AIR 2000(AIR)
 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case); (1987) 4 SCC 463 ; AIR 1988 SC
1037
 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India; Writ Petition (Civil) No. 860 of 1991
 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India; AIR 2002 SC 1955
 Municipal Corporation of The city of Ahmedabad and Others v/s Jan Mohammed
Usmanbhai and Another; 1986 AIR 1205, 1986 SCR (2) 700
 R. L. & E. Kendra, Dehradun v. State of U. P; A.I.R 1985 S.C. 652 (popularly known
Doon Valley Case)
 Subhash Kumar v/s State of Bihar; 1991 AIR 420, 1991 SCR (1) 5

STATUTES
 The Constitution of India
 Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
 Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
 Page |6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioners have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Sindhia, under Article 32 of
the Constitution of Sindhia on the violation of Article 21 on behalf of the Petitioners. The
relevant extract is reproduced hereunder for ease of reference:

Article 32 :

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement
of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by this Part

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and
( 2 ), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local
limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court
under clause ( 2 )

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise
provided for by this Constitution

The present memorial on behalf of the Petitioners sets forth the facts, arguments and
prayers in the present case.
 Page |7

STATEMENT OF FACTS
BACKGROUND
Petitioner No. 1 Ayub Khan and Petitioner No. 2 Gopal Sharma, on the date of filing of this
writ petition, were six months old and Petitioner No. 3 Anil Yadav was fourteen months old.

This petition has been filed through their next friends, i.e. their fathers, who are concerned
about the health of their children as they feel that due to the alarming degradation of the air
quality, leading to severe air pollution in the city of Sundar Nagar (where these Petitioners
reside), the Petitioners may encounter various health hazards. Poor, very poor or severe air
quality/air pollution affects all citizens, irrespective of their age.

THE SUPREME COURT

The Petitioners approached the Supreme Court of Sindhia, claiming that children are much
more vulnerable to air pollutants as exposure thereto may affect them in various ways,
including aggravation of asthma, coughing, bronchitis, retarded nervous system breakdown
and even cognitive impairment.

The petition accepts that there are a number of reasons which have contributed to poor air
quality in Sundar Nagar a city in Sindhia country. At the same time, it is emphasized that air
pollution hits it's all-time high during Diwali time because of indiscriminate use of
firecrackers, the chemical composition which increases harmful particulate matter at an
alarming level.

Petitioners have approached the Supreme Court seeking relief as pollution creates violation of
right to health, violation of provisions of different laws and well established principles.

Petitioners thus want the court to issue appropriate directions in order to control the rising
level of environment pollution problem which affects the life of people which is the basic
fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of Sindhia.
 Page |8

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO HEALTH AND SAFE ENVIRONMENT OF

THE PETITIONERS STATED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
SINDHIA HAS BEEN VIOLATED?

ISSUE II

WILL A TOTAL BAN OR PROHIBITION ON FIRECRACKERS BE UNREASONABLE, AND

AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT STATED UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(G) TO CARRY
ON FREE TRADE AND BUSINESS?

ISSUE III

CAN A TOTAL BAN OR PROHIBITION ON FIRECRACKERS BE IMPOSED OR NOT?

 Page |9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I.Whether the fundamental right to health and safe environment of the

petitioners stated under Article 21 of the Constitution of Sindhia has been
violated?
Article 21 of Constitution of India deals with protection of life and personal liberty, Article
21it states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
a procedure established by law.”

Thus, Article 21 secures two rights i.e., the right to life, and the right to personal liberty.

Therefore, the indiscriminate use of firecrackers causes air pollution especially during Diwali
time and leads to the degradation of air quality, which in turn affects the health and well
beingwell-being of the citizens especially affecting children in their development ages, while
harming the environmental composition, at an alarming rate.

Therefore, it can be concluded that pollution violates the fundamental rights of a person i.e.,
the rightright to health and a stable environment as enumeratedstated under Article 21 of the
Constitution of Sindhia, and the provisions of various laws and well established principles.

II. Will a total ban or prohibition on firecrackers be unreasonable, and

against the fundamental right stated under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on free
trade and business?

Article 19(1)(g) deals with the protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc.
(1) All citizens shall have the right:

(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

However, Article 19(6) states that nothing in sub clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the
operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any
 P a g e | 10

law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of
the right conferred by the said sub clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub clause
shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from
making any law relating to,
○ the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any
profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or
○ the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the
State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion,
complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise
Therefore, reasonable restrictions can be imposed “in the interest of the general public” and
includes public health within its ambit as per Article 19(6).

Since, the use of firecrackers leading to severe air pollution endangers life, health, property a
reasonable restriction will not be in violation of the fundamental right.

III. Can a total ban or prohibition on firecrackers be imposed or not?

The fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) does not encompass activities inherently
causing danger to the society. They are considered “res extra commercium” there is no
fundamental right in carrying out trade and business and the appropriate authorities can
regulate through licensing and prohibit such activities.

Firecrackers have a negative effect on the environment and health of individuals, especially
affecting children and the elderly. It is therefore inherently dangerous to society and therefore
considered res extra commercium. The total ban and prohibition on fireworks is justified.
 P a g e | 11

ARGUMENTS

I. Whether the fundamental right to health and safe environment of the

petitioners stated under Article 21 of the Constitution of Sindhia has been
violated?

The environmental laws which have been passed by Parliament and State legislatures which
are mainly based on the recognition of clean environment as a human right or fundamental
right. Pertinently, As it has been recognized that a clean environment is the basic need for the
survival of humanity and it cannot be ensured without ecological balance , thus, this right
can be exercise by all the persons irrespective of caste, race, religion, gender, etc as it belongs
to all as the survival of mankind depends mainly onon clean, healthful andor pollution free
environment. Any attempt to defile, damage the natural environment would amount to
violation of the fundamental/human right to a clean environment.

The first indication of recognizing the right to live in a healthy environment as a part of
Article 21 was evident from the case of R. L. & E. Kendra, Dehradun v. State of U. P.

The Stockholm Conference of 1972 also declared that “man has the fundamental right to
freedom of equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that
permits a life of dignity and well-being….”

The Constitutional scheme to protect and preserve the environment has been provided under
Article 21, 48-A and 51-A (g) which includes fundamental right to have healthy and pollution
free environment, constitutional obligation of the State and fundamental duty of all the
citizens of Sindhia to protect and improve the natural environment. The Supreme Court has
clarified it in many cases. It has also been observed by the Court that this scheme is based on
the ‘constitutional policy of sustainable development’ which must be implemented.’

In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, Justice Saghir Ahmed explained ; In order to afford
protection to’ life’, in order to protect ‘environment’ and in order to protect ‘air, water and
soil’ from pollution , this court through its various judgments has given effect to the rights
available to the citizens and other persons alike, under Article 21 of the Constitution.
 P a g e | 12

It was clarified by the Supreme Court that “any disturbance of the basic environment
elements ,namely , air, water and soil, which are necessary for ‘life’, would be hazardous to’
life ‘ within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution.’’

All this means that the right to life means I) right to live with human dignity , and 2) the
quality of life as understood in its richness 1 and fullness by the ambit of the Constitution. It
also e‘’encompasses within its fold, some of the finer facets of human civilization which
make life worth living.’’

It has also been declared by the Supreme Court that “for the jurisprudence developed by this
court environment is merely a statutory issue. Environment is one of the facets of the right to
life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also made it clear that since
environment is a matter directly under the Constitution and “if the court perceives any project
or activity as harmful or injurious to the environment, it would feel obliged to step in.”

Any activity which pollutes the environment and makes it unhealthy, hazardous to human
health or health of flora and fauna, is violative of right to have “living environment”,
implicitly guaranteed by Article 21. Similarly, “the slow poisoning by the polluted
atmosphere caused by environmental pollution and spoliation could also be regarded as
amounting to violation by Article 21 of the Constitution”.2 aAnd the fulfilment guaranteed by
Article 21 also embraces the protection and preservation of nature’s gift without which life
cannot be fully enjoyed.

Therefore it has been humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court of Sindhia that, the

Article 21 deals with the right to protection of life and personal liberty. In the landmark
judgment of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India1 the Supreme Court held that the right to
life in Article 21 means “something more than mere animal existence” and includes the right
to human dignity. It includes all aspects which make life meaningful and worth living.

1
2
 P a g e | 13

In Subhash Kumar v/s State of Bihar the Supreme Court held that right to life is a
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of Sindhia and it includes the right to
enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for enjoyment of life. A citizen has the right to
recourse for anything detrimental and endangering or impairing the quality of life in
derogation of laws.

The Supreme Court has invoked Article 21 in order to grant relief against the effect of
pollution in the environment from time to time. Protection of the right to health has a link
with the environment. A healthy environment is itself a fundamental right as held by the
Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v/s Union of India.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that,

i. Burning of firecrackers is a cause for pollution affecting all citizens irrespective of

age. However, children and elderly are more vulnerable to air pollutants as the
exposure may affect them in various ways including aggravation of asthma, coughing,
bronchitis, retarded nervous system breakdown and even cognitive impairment.
ii. The manufacturing of firecrackers generates a lot of waste which adds to the air
pollution as sufficient measures have not been taken in order to deal with waste.
Number of deaths as well as injuries are caused every year due to poor storage and
burning of firecrackers resulting in occasional accidents and mishaps.
iii. Air Pollution is the worst during Diwali, because of excessive use of firecrackers, due
to which the chemical composition affects the environment and which increases
harmful particulate matter in the environment at an alarming level causing a situation
of emergency. This has resulted in air pollution going above the Health Organization
(WHO) standards. Studies by C.P.C.B (Central Pollution Control Board) had
categorically found that burning of crackers during diwali was contributing to air as
well as noise pollution in an alarming manner.

In the recent judgment of Arjun Gopal and others v/s Union of India and others the Hon’ble
Supreme Court had directed the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to study and
prepare a report on the ‘harmful effects of the fireworks’. The Central Pollution Control
Board (CPCB) in its report of October 2017 titled “Status of Pollution Abatement Measures”
had mentioned the following health hazards:
 P a g e | 14

a. The children breathe toxic air and suffer from nasal irritation and throat congestion.
b. The smoke also irritates the eyes causing tears and redness.
c. Bursting crackers may increase blood pressure and aggravate heart disease. d)
Nausea, headache and dizziness are common effects of bursting crackers.
d. Lung infections such as coughing, sneezing, respiratory disorders like asthma, and
wheezing often get severe during Deepawali festival.
e. Besides the above, lack of safety measures also cause serious accidents varying from
serious burns and injuries to death in some cases.

Therefore it is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the manufacturing and
bursting of firecrackers adversely affects the health as well as the environment and as
such violates the petitioner’s right to good health and right to wholesome
environment, both of which are enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.

II. Will a total ban or prohibition on firecrackers be unreasonable, and

against the fundamental right stated under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on free
trade and business?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Sindhia that,

Article 19(1)(g) guarantees to all citizens the right to practise any profession or to carry on
any occupation, trade or business. However, reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the
use of this right as mentioned Under Article 19(6). The restrictions laid for right in Article
19(1)(g) as defined in Article 19(6) are that:

A. State shall make any law imposing the rights provided under Article 19(g) in the
interest of the general public.
B. The State shall make any law relating to professional or technical qualifications
necessary for practicing a profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business,
C. Law in relation to creation of State Monopoly.

The phrase “in the interest of the general public” is the main ingredient in Art 19(6) and has
come to be considered in several decisions. It has been held in various cases that it would
include within its ambit interests like public health and morality.
 P a g e | 15

No Violation of Article 19(1)(g)

Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution confers right upon every citizen to practice any
profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. However, this fundamental right
is subject to reasonable restrictions which may be placed in the interest of the general public
as provided in sub clause 6 of Article 19 itself. No one has a right to carry on business so as
to cause nuisance to the general society at large. One cannot carry on business in a manner by
which the business activity becomes a health hazard to the entire society.

Restrictions Imposed would be considered reasonable

The substances found in the fire crackers are a major factor contributing to environmental
pollution. Thus, it all relates to fundamental right to freedom of trade and commerce /
business guaranteed under Article (1)(g) of the Constitution of Sindhia. These harmful
firecrackers are endangering vegetation cover, animals, aquatic life and most importantly
human health.

Time and again, it has been made clear that the freedom of trade and commerce is not
absolute and is subject to certain reasonable restrictions. Therefore, any trade or business
which is offensive to flora and fauna or human beings cannot be permitted to be carried on in
the name of fundamental rights.

In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, it was observed that persons do not have right
to carry on any trade profession in flagrant violation of regulatory provisions on a massive
scale. This would also result in environmental pollution.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of Kamal Nath, the Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that if
a hotel is discharging untreated effluent into the river Beas, thereby disturbing aquatic life
and causing water pollution, it cannot be permitted to work. Any disturbance of the basic
environment elements namely air, water and soil, which are necessary for “life”, would be
“hazardous to life.” Thus, the Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32 cannot
 P a g e | 16

only award damages but can also levy fine – exemplary damages on the erring industry which
will act as a deterrent for others not to cause pollution.

No citizen can manufacture, sell and deal with fireworks creating sound beyond permissible
limit and generating pollution endangering public health- It must be held that Article 19 (I)
(g) of the Constitution of the India does not guarantee the fundamental right to carry on trade
or business which creates pollution or which takes away that communities safety, healthy and
place. It cannot be said that a citizen have a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India to carry on trade or business and/or manufacture poison which may be
used for killing of people. This right is negative as nobody has any right to carry on any trade
or business in intoxicating liquors by virtue of the right conferred under Article 19 (I) (g).
There is no inherent or fundamental right in citizen to manufacture, sell and deal with
fireworks which will create sound beyond permissible limit, and which will generate
pollution which would endanger the health and the public order. A citizen or people cannot
be made a captive listener to hear the tremendous sounds caused by bursting out from a noisy
fire works. It may give pleasure to one or two persons who burst it, but others must be a
captive listener whose fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) and other
provisions of the Constitution are taken away, suspended and made meaningless.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union Of India (Ganga Pollution Case) , Justice Singh declared in
unequivocal terms that the closure of industries may bring unemployment and loss of
revenue to the State, “but life, health and ecology have greater importance for the people.”

In Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, it was noted that, the health of the people has to take
precedence over any commercial or other interests, graded regulation of firecrackers was
necessary which would eventually result in prohibition. Accordingly, directions were issued
to restrict the temporary licenses to 50%, pending further consideration.

The reports of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) as relied on in the case of Arjun
Gopal and others v/s Union of India and others specifically highlights the harmful effects of
bursting of firecrackers. It not only affects the environment but also impacts public health at
large.
 P a g e | 17

Fireworks industry is a hazardous industry, and also endangers lives. The manufacture,
transportation and storage of fireworks is a risk to life and property. The lack of safety
measures also cause serious accidents varying from serious burns and injuries to death in
some cases every year.

Article 19(1)(g) is not an absolute right

In the case of Municipal Corporation of The city of Ahmedabad and Others v/s Jan
Mohammed Usmanbhai and Another, it was stated that “Clause (6) of Art. 19 protects a law
which imposes in the interest of general public reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the
right conferred by sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of Art. 19. Obviously it is left to the court in
case of a dispute to determine the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed by the law. In
determining that question the court cannot proceed on a general notion of what is reasonable
in the abstract or even on a consideration of what is reasonable from the point of view of the
person or persons on whom the restrictions are imposed. The right conferred by sub-clause
(g) is expressed in general language and if there had been no qualifying provision like clause
(6) the right so conferred would have been an absolute one. To the persons who have this
right any restriction will be irksome an d may well be regarded by them as unreasonable. But
the question cannot be decided on that basis. What the Court has to do is to consider whether
the restrictions imposed are reasonable in the interest of general public.”

In the same case, it was stated that The expression 'in the interest of general public' is of wide
import comprehending public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare
of the community and the objects mentioned in part IV of the Constitution.

Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that,

The manufacturing and bursting of fireworks is dangerous to life, property, environment and
overall public health which is encompassed in the phrase “in interest of the general public”.

Since the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business
under Art. 19 (1)(g) is not absolute and reasonable restrictions can be imposed “in interest of
general public” that includes “public health”, therefore a ban on firecrackers is a reasonable
restriction and as such no right of the respondent to carry on business, trade or occupation of
the respondent enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) is violated by it.
 P a g e | 18

III. Can a total ban or prohibition on firecrackers be imposed or not?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Sindhia that,

The right guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (g) is not sufficiently broad to encompass activities
which are inherently pernicious or dangerous to society. These are considered to be “res extra
commercium” and there is no fundamental right in their trade or business and the government
is at liberty to regulate through licensing or to prohibit them altogether.

It has been time and again proved that bursting of firecrackers endangers health, life, property
and environment too. The CPCB has stated in its report as mentioned earlier various harmful
effects of manufacturing and bursting of firecrackers.

The bursting of firecrackers can also sometimes cause non-recoverable hearing loss. The
children breathe toxic air and suffer from nasal irritation and throat congestion. The smoke
also irritates the eyes, causing tears and redness. Bursting crackers may increase blood
pressure and aggravate heart disease. Nausea, headache and dizziness are common effects of
bursting crackers. Lung infections such as coughing, sneezing, respiratory disorders like
asthma, wheezing often get severe during Deepawali festival. The pollution hazards such as
the toxic smoke causes a lot of discomfort in breathing. Besides the above, lack of safety
measures also cause serious accidents varying from serious burns and injuries to death in
some cases.

Thus it is inherently pernicious as well as dangerous to society, therefore it is also “res extra
commercium” and hence there is no fundamental right in this trade or business and as such it
can be prohibited altogether.

Trades which have reprehensible moral and social effect are categorized as “res extra
commercium” and do not constitute business as contemplated by Art. 19(1)(g).

Art. 19 (1) (g) does not entitle any person to carry on trade or business in immoral or criminal
activities. These are classified as “res extra commercial”. Since liquor is intoxicating,
injurious and dangerous to health, trade or business in liquor is “res extra commercial”. There
is no fundamental right to carry on such trade or business and it can be completely prohibited.
These principles were set out by the Supreme Court in the case of Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs.
State of Karnataka.
 P a g e | 19

Similarly, the manufacturing and bursting of firecrackers too is intoxicating, injurious and
dangerous to health and hence it is “res extra commercium” and as laid down in the cases
mentioned above and therefore it can be completely prohibited.

Therefore it is humbly submitted that a total prohibition or blanket ban on firecrackers is

justified.
 P a g e | 20

PRAYERS
Wherefore, in the light of the legal precedents and principles cited; and in light of the
provisions of the Constitution applied and arguments advanced; and in light of the scientific
studies relating to the issue referred to, the Petitioners most humbly prayed that:

A. The fundamental right to health and wholesome environment of the petitioner

enshrined under Article 21 has been violated.

B. The fundamental right to carry on business, trade or occupation of the respondent

enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) would not be violated if a ban is imposed on the
firecrackers.

C. To prohibit bursting of firecrackers.

D. Issue a complete ban on production and sale of firecrackers containing substances

harmful for health on standalone shops as well as on e-commerce websites.

E. The Court may make any other such order as it may deem fit in terms of justice,
equity and good conscience.

And for this act of kindness the Petitioners as are duty bound shall ever pay.

DATE: 18.10.2021 (S/d)

PLACE: MUMBAI (Counsels for Petitioners)