TEAM CODE: T-50

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

W.P. (CIVIL) NO. OF 2021

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

In the matter of Article 21

of Constitution of India

SABKI UMMEED NGO ........................................................................................PETITIONER

v.

UNION OF INDIA ...................................................................................................... RESPONDENTS

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON‟BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ 1

Table Of Abbreviations.............................................................................................................2

Index Of Authorities .................................................................................................................. 3

Statement of Jurisdiction............................................................................................................ 5

Facts of the case ........................................................................................................................ 6

Issues Raised ...........................................................................................................................8

Summary of Arguments .......................................................................................................... 9

Arguments Advanced................................................................................................................. 10

I. Whether the PIL filed by SABKI UMMEED NGO is maintainable. ……………………10

I.1. Public interest litigation can be filed against the union of India………………………..10

II. Whether the pollution caused by the bursting of firecrackers is violative of the Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. …………………………………………………………….13

II.1. Violation of Right to Life…………………………………………………………13

II.1.1. The hazardous air quality of the State of NCT of Delhi, is as fatal as inhaling
poison. …………………………………………………………………14

II.2. Restriction on the use of firecrackers shall be a reasonable restriction on the Right
to liberty.……………………………………………………………15

II.2.1. The restrictions imposed on the use of firecrackers shall be

reasonable…………………………………………………………..16

1
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 II.2.2. Not violative of the Fundamental Right to carry on any occupation trade or
business enshrined in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of
India………………………………………………………………..17

III. Whether the bursting of crackers is essential part of Right to Religion…………………17

III.1. Doctrine of essential practice……………………………………………………..17

III.2. Bursting of crackers as valid custom…………………………………………… 19

Prayer………………………………………………………………………………………..21

2
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

¶ Para

AIR All India Reporter

All Allahabad

Cal Calcutta

Ed. Edition

ICCPR International Convention on Civil and Political Rights,1966

ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights,1966

Mad Madras

p. Page No.

PIL Public Interest Litigation

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Reports

UDHR United Nations Declaration on human rights

3
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

1. Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum vs. Union of India……………………………….

2. SP Gupta v. Union of India………………………………………………………..
3. Research Foundation for Science Technology and Natural Resources Policy v. UOI..
4. Francis Coralie Mullin v. UT of Delhi…………………………………………………
5. Aditya Dubey (Minor) & Anr V. Union Of India & Ors……………………………...
6. A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu…………………………………..
7. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union Of India & Others………………………………….
8. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India…………………………………………………….
9. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir & Another……………
10. State of Madras v. V. G. Rao………………………………………………………..
11. E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu………………………………………………….
12. Municipal Corpn. Of the City of Ahmedabad v. Jan Mohammad Usmanbhai…………
13. Arjun Gopal & Ors. v/s Union of India & Ors………………………………………….
14. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha
Swamiar Of Sri Shirur Mutt…………………………………………………..
15. Church of God (Full Gospel) v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare
Association…………...
16. Maulana Mufti v. State of West Bengal………………………………………………
17. Ajmer v. Syed Ali……………………………………………………………………
18. Raja Verma vs Ravi Verma………………………………………………………
19. Mst. Sardar Bibi v. Haq Nawaz Khan………………………………………………
20. Sona. Krishnamoorthy vs The Commissioner, Writ Appeal (MD) No.243 of 2009….

BOOKS

1. Basu D.D , Constitution of India ,14th edition 2009, LexisNexis, Butterworths Wadhwa
Publication Nagpur.

2. Shukla V.N., Constitution of India, 13th edition, EBC, EBC Publishing (P) Ltd., Lucknow.

4
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 3. Doabia T.S, Environmental & Pollution laws in India, 1st Edition 2005, Wadhwa
Nagpur.Jain

4. M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, 6th Edition 2011, LexisNexis Butterworth Wadhwa
Nagpur.
5. Sumeet Malik, Environmental Law, 1st Edition 2008, Eastern Book Company.

6. N.V. Paranjape, Studies in Jurisprudence and Legal Theory, 2016, Central Law Agency.

7. Tulsidas, Shri Ram Charit Manas.

LEGAL DATABASES

1. Manupatra

2. SCC Online

LEGISLATIONS

1. The Constitution of India, 1950.

2. Societies Registration Act, 1860

CONVENTIONS

1. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966

2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966

5
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner humbly submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has jurisdiction in the
instant case through the powers conferred on it by the virtue of Article 32 of the Constitution of
India. The jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court has been invoked by the petitioner in light of violation
of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Article 32, reads as follows:

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 clauses (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.

6
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The Republic of India is a country situated in the southern part of Asia. It is an amalgamation
of rich culture and history. It is 7th largest country by area and 2nd most populous country in the
world with a land area measuring 3,287,263 square Kilometers. It is one of the fastest developing
countries, and emits 7% of global emission.

2. The festival of Diwali, a significant occasion in the history of Hinduism, which marks the return
of Lord Rama from exile, is celebrated with great enthusiasm in the “Republic of India”.

3. This festival is being celebrated from time immemorial. People light their homes with earthen
lamps and candles and exchange sweets. However, from 2200 years ago, a trend of bursting
firecrackers came from the neighboring country into the Republic of India. Soon, the trend became
a widespread practice in the country.

4. Over the last two decades, the pollution caused by firecrackers has been harmful for the
environment of the Republic of India.

5. The State of NCT of Delhi, the capital city of the Republic of India is infamous for its highly
polluted air, however, its polluted air turns fatal in the months of October, November and
December, with the advent of the season of festivities.

6. The air pollution peaks due to stubble burning and indiscriminate usage of firecrackers during
the festive season of Diwali.

7. The rise in Air Quality Index (hereinafter, AQI), increases the level of toxic particles in the air
(example PM 2.5 or PM10), which is a matter of grave concern as it is not only a cause of minor
health issues like cough and difficulty in breathing, but it is also a major cause for diseases which
can permanently damage the lungs.

8. Over the last 20 years, Delhi has witnessed an upsurge in the level of pollution. The situation
7
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
has only worsened over the years. The upward trajectory of the worsening air quality has brought
us to the day where the day to day lives of people have been obstructed resulting in a citywide
lockdown, in the national capital, to control air pollution.

9. In a recent report by IQAir, Delhi has been ranked as the most polluted capital city in the world.

10. Concerned by this alarming situation in the national capital, SABKI UMMEED NGO,
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 has filed the present PIL before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India and to seek a ban on the use of firecrackers.

8
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE I: Whether the PIL filed by SABKI UMMEED NGO is maintainable.

ISSUE II: Whether the pollution caused by the bursting of firecrackers is violative of the
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

ISSUE III: Whether the bursting of crackers is essential part of Right to Religion.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I: Whether the PIL filed by SABKI UMMEED NGO is maintainable.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court, that the Public Interest Litigation filed Under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India constitution is maintainable as the indiscriminate usage of
firecrackers is violating fundamental rights and basic human rights of the people enshrined in the
constitution of India , which qualifies it as a matter of Public interest.

ISSUE II: Whether the pollution caused by bursting firecrackers is violative of the Article
21 of the Constitution of India.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court, that the Right to Life enshrined in Article 21 of
the Constitution of India has been violate due to the pollution caused by bursting firecrackers. The
high rates of pollution have put public health at stake and any restrictions on the use and sale of
firecrackers in the best interest of the general public would be reasonable.

ISSUE III: Whether the bursting of crackers is essential part of Right to Religion.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court, that the Right to religion follows a Doctrine of
essential Practices, the bursting of Firecrackers during the Festive season has failed to cross the
fine line between essential practices and non-essential practices of a religion, it is further
highlighted that the said act is an invalid custom .

10

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I: Whether the PIL filed by SABKI UMMEED NGO is maintainable.

The present petition filed by SABKI UMEED NGO is maintainable under Article 32 of Indian
Constitution, as the said NGO has the locus standi in the present petition and further there is a
violation of basic human rights and fundamental rights of the public at large, which qualifies it as
a matter of public interest or general interest.

I.1.Public interest litigation can be filed against the union of India.

As per Article 32 of Indian constitution, ‘a person or any Organization can file a public interest
litigation if there has been a violation of fundamental rights enshrined in Indian constitution.”

Further in the year 1988 to bring more clarity to the issue of public interest litigation the supreme
of India laid down certain guidelines for filing PIL in the HC and SC of India. 1
These are the following heads under which a PIL is maintainable:

1. Bonded Labor matters.

2. Neglected Children.
3. Non-payment of minimum wages to workers and exploitation of casual workers and complaints
of violation of Labor Laws (except in individual cases).
5. Petitions against police for refusing to register a case, harassment by police
and death in police custody.
6. Petitions against atrocities on women, in particular harassment of bride, bride burning, rape,
murder, kidnapping etc.
7. Petitions complaining of harassment or torture of villagers by co- villagers or by police from
persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and economically backward classes.
8. Petitions pertaining to environmental pollution, disturbance of ecological balance, drugs, food

1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (1988) COMPILATION OF GUIDELINES TO BE FOLLOWED FOR
ENTERTAINING LETTERS/PETITIONS RECEIVED
11

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

adulteration, maintenance of heritage and culture, antiques, forest and wild life and other matters
of public importance.
9. Petitions from riot -victims.
10. Family Pension.

In the landmark judgment of Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum vs. Union of India2 the Supreme
Court of India held that a social organization can file a public interest litigation if it is affecting the
health of the people at large. In this case the tanneries situated around river Palar in Vellore (T.N.)
were found discharging toxic chemicals in the river, thereby jeopardizing the health of the
residents. The Court asked the tanneries to close their business.

Further in the case of SP Gupta v. Union of India3, Justice P.N Bhagwati has mentioned that “Any
member of the Public or any social organization can file a Public interest litigation in Supreme
Court or High Court seeking redressal against the violation of their fundamental rights enshrined
in our constitution.”

In the case of Research Foundation for Science Technology and Natural Resources Policy v.
UOI4, the Supreme Court of India held that a Public Interest Litigation is maintainable if it is filed
for seeking redressal for the violation of Fundamental Rights of the people.

It can be observed from the Indian supreme court case reports that 104 PILS were filed from 1980-
2000 in the Supreme Court of India out of which 54 were filed by individuals and 28 were filed by
the NGOs on the behalf of the aggrieved parties, this clarifies that the instrument of PIL provides
an opportunity to the third party for representing himself on the behalf of the aggrieved parties.

Many environmental and social action such as center for science and environment, Goa foundation,
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Indian council for Enviro-Legal Action and many other
registered NGOs are playing an instrumental role in saving Environment and filing petitions to
safeguard the Environment5.

2
SC 1996
3
AIR 1982 SC 149
4
SC 2007
5
Geetanjoy., S., 2008. PUBLIC INTEREST ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATIONS IN INDIA: Contributions and
Complications.” The Indian Journal of Political Science. JSTOR, [online] Availablehttps://www.jstor.org
[Accessed 20 November 2021].
12

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Therefore, it is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that in the light of the
aforementioned principles and concerns, the present PIL filed by SABKI UMEED NGO under
Article 32 of Indian constitution shall be accepted as the issue brought before this Hon'ble Court
is in violation of the Fundamental Rights of the public and the prayers made to seek justice are in
compliance with all the general guidelines of Indian constitution be accepted.

ISSUE II: Whether the pollution caused by bursting firecrackers is violative of the Article
21 of the Constitution of India.

It is most humbly submitted before the hon’ble court, that the pollution caused by bursting of
firecrackers is a [II.1.] violation of the Right to Life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution
of India. Furthermore, any [ II.2.] restriction on the use of firecrackers shall be a reasonable
restriction on the Right to liberty.

II.1. Violation of Right to Life

Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees a right to life and personal liberty to the people of India.
The word ‘people’ implies that these rights are not just of the citizens alone, as the apex court has
ensured protection of life and liberty of the non-citizens as well as, of the people who have not
been recognized as lawful citizens of the country for some reason 6. Furthermore, the right to life
of people has also been recognized by ICESCR7 , UDHR8 and ICCPR9 .
Field J’s words on right to life, have been quoted frequently in various cases. He defines the ‘life’
as follows:
“By the term ‘life’, as here used, something more is meant than mere animal existence. The
inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed.
The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by the amputation of an arm or leg, or
putting out of an eye, or destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul
communicates with the outer world.”10

6
Shukla, V., 2017. The Constitution of India. 13th ed. Lucknow: Eastern Book Co., p.210.
7
Article 6, ICCPR
8
Article 3, UDHR.
9
Article 11, ICESCR
10
Consti ebc
13

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

The aforementioned statement, was further provided with more clarity in the case of Francis
Coralie Mullin v. UT of Delhi. In the said case, the following has been held:
“..that any act which damages or injures or interferes with the use of any limb or faculty of a
person, either permanently or even temporarily, would be within the inhibition of Article 21”.11

In the instant case, Article 21 has been violated as, [II.1.1.] the hazardous air quality of the State
of NCT of Delhi, is as fatal as inhaling poison.12

[II.1.1.] The hazardous air quality of the State of NCT of Delhi, is as fatal as inhaling poison.

A few days ago, it has been noted by the Chief Justice of India13 , that out of the total air pollution
caused, firecracker burning and vehicular emission amount to 75% of the air pollution in the
national capital.

Seven months back, Delhi had been ranked as the most polluted capital city in the world and 22 of
the world’s most polluted cities are in India.

The aforementioned is not a surprise, as over the past few years, the national capital has maintained
a consistent record of being one of the most polluted cities in the world.14 The only relief Delhi’s
environment has felt so far, is during the lockdown period, when its pollution levels decreased
drastically.15

Every year, right after Diwali, stubble burning takes place, which further aggravates the bad air

11
1980 AIR 849
12
2021. [anon] Available at: https://www.timesnownews.com/health/article/diwali-2018-green-crackers-five-health-
hazards-of-crackers-and-fireworks-you-must-know/303774 [Accessed 20 November 2021].
13
ADITYA DUBEY (MINOR) & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS., 2020
14
¶ 9 Facts of the case.
15
Mahato, S., Pal, S. and Ghosh, K., 2020. Effect of lockdown amid COVID-19 pandemic on air quality of the
megacity Delhi, India. Science of The Total Environment, 730, p.139086.
14

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

quality due to the increase in harmful particles16 in the air caused during the celebrations.17

In the year 2017, in spite of ban ordered by the apex court on the sale of firecrackers during Diwali,
in the Delhi-NCR region, the air quality worsened.18

The apex court while ordering the ban, had relied on the report by C.P.C.B19, which stated the
harmful effects of firecrackers. Furthermore, despite the directions of the Supreme Court of India,
that prohibit bursting sound-emitting firecrackers between 10 pm to 6 pm, the contrary happens.

Right to life has a wide scope and includes protection against air pollution.20 The pollution caused
due to bursting firecrackers is fatal enough to deprive us of our lives.
Hence, the excessive amount of pollution caused in the air as a result of human interreference is a
violation of Right to life.

II.2. Restriction on the use of firecrackers shall be a reasonable restriction on the Right to
liberty.

The following has been held by Bhagwati J:

“…This right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath from the
Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Articles
41 and 42 at least, therefore, protection of the health and strength of the workers, men and women,
of the tender age of children against abuse, opportunities and facilities for children to develop in
a healthy manner and in conditions of work and maternity relief. These are the minimum

16
Online, F., 2021. Smog in Delhi due to Diwali pollution? NASA satellite images suggest crop burning in Punjab,
Haryana adding to city’s smog. [online] The Financial Express. Available at:
https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/nasa-pics-delhi-pollution-smog-in-delhi-punjab-haryana-farmers-
burning-crops-delhi-pollution-latest-news/438050/ [Accessed 20 November 2021].
17
WION. 2021. Red dots over Delhi: Nasa shares satellite images of dangerous pollution levels in Indian capital.
[online] Available at: https://www.wionews.com/india-news/red-dots-over-delhi-nasa-shares-satellite-images-of-
dangerous-pollution-levels-in-indian-capital-430548 [Accessed 20 November 2021].
18
The Economic Times. 2021. Despite ban on sale of firecrackers, air quality worsened: CPCB. [online] Available at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/despite-ban-on-sale-of-firecrackers-air-quality-
worsened-cpcb/articleshow/62384128.cms?from=mdr [Accessed 20 November 2021].
19
Cpcb.nic.in. 2021. CPCB | Central Pollution Control Board. [online] Available at: https://cpcb.nic.in/ [Accessed
20 November 2021].
20
A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu 1999 2 SCC 718
15

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

requirements which must exist in order to enable a person to live with human dignity, and no
State..has the right to take any action which will deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic
essentials.”21

In the light of the aforesaid principles, it is the duty of the State to ensure protection of health of
the people residing in the country. Towards the fulfilment of this duty, [II.2.] the restrictions
imposed on the use of firecrackers shall be reasonable, and, [II.2.2.] not violative of the
Fundamental Right to carry on any occupation trade or business enshrined in Article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution of India.

II.2.1. The restrictions imposed on the use of firecrackers shall be reasonable.

With respect to the procedure mentioned in Article 21, Justice Chandrachud and Justice Krishna
Iyer, have respectively said that the concerned procedure needs to be “..fair, just and reasonable,
not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary” and “law” “..is reasonable law, not any enacted piece.”22
Furthermore, it has been established by this Hon’ble court that the actions of the government which
seek proper implementation of the Directive Principles of State Policy in the interest of the general
public, qualify the test of reasonability.23 These Directive Principles, further act like a guiding
light to the legislature as they establish the goals of the Constitution.24

Since, creating opportunities of healthy development of children and the protecting the health of
workers, men, women, and, children is a Constitutional goal, any restrictions imposed on the
liberty of the public would be reasonable, and in interest of the greater good of the public.25

II.2.2. Not violative of the Fundamental Right to carry on any occupation trade or business
enshrined in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Article 304(b) of the Constitution of India, allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions
through a law when the public interest requires so. Furthermore, the issues of public interest,

21
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union Of India & Others 1984 AIR 802
22
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978] 2 SCR 621
23
Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir & Another 1980 AIR 1992
24
State of Madras v. V. G. Rao [1952] SCR 597, E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu [1974] 2 SCR 348
25
Constitution of India. Article 39.
16

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

namely, public health26 and morality27 have been time and again included under the ambit of
Article 19(6), which allows reasonable restrictions to preserve the interests of the general public.28

In the case of Arjun Gopal & Ors. v/s Union of India & Ors.29 it has been observed, how
firecrackers have an extremely harmful effect on the environment which in turn is affecting the
public health.

In the light of the aforementioned principles and concerns, it is humbly asserted that any restriction
on the use or sale of firecrackers shall be to safeguard the public interest and be a reasonable
restriction on the liberty and Right to Trade.

ISSUE III: Whether the bursting of crackers is essential part of Right to Religion.

It is humbly pleaded before this Hon’ble Court that bursting of crackers doesn’t fall under the
ambit of essential practices, therefore it is not violative of Article 25, which envisages on freedom
of religion to every person, it provides that all persons in the territory of India subject to subject to
public order, morality, health, and other provisions: Have the right to freely profess, practice and
propagate any religion.

III.1. Doctrine of essential practice.

The Doctrine of essential practice envisages on defining what is essential element of a religion,30
the doctrine emphasis on only those practices which forms the essential part of any religion,
without which the fundamental foundation of that religion would fail, the doctrine protects only
those religious practices without which the religion would not be the same and lead to major
alterations, core and fundamentals of any religions are the foundation on which the religion is
based.
The bursting of crackers doesn’t fall under the ambit of essential practice and under Article 25 of

26
Municipal Corpn. Of the City of Ahmedabad v. Jan Mohammad Usmanbhai AIR 1986 SC 1205
27
State of Maharashtra vs. Himmatbhai Narbheram Rao, AIR 1970 SC 1157
28
Constitution of India. Article 19(6).
29
(2017) 1 SCC 412
30
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar Of Sri Shirur Mutt 1954 AIR
282
17

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Indian constitution, as the bursting of crackers has no place in the history.

According to Hindu Mythology:

“Diwali is celebrated as a festival of lights and prosperity and there is no mention of firecrackers
being burst in Ayodhay in Tulsidas' Ramcharitmanas. In a specific verse on page 839 it reads,
there was a sound from the sky, the whole Ayodhay was decorated with flowers, a special
fragrance was scattered in the streets.” However, there is no mention of bursting of crackers.31

The history of Ramayana is believed to be 5000 years old32 but the use of firecrackers originated
from China about 2200 years ago. These firecrackers were not made from gunpowder but from
bamboo. The use of gunpowder to make firecrackers also started in China in the 9th century.33

Further, it has been seen time and again where judiciary has defined the Doctrine of essential
practice in Church of God (Full Gospel) v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association.34 The
supreme court of India in this case held that “nowhere in the religious scriptures it is mentioned
that performing the ceremony by beating of drums or using amplifiers is essential practice and it
was further stated that the if the customs permit any such activity, then it should be practiced
without affecting the rights of others.”

In the case of Maulana Mufti v. State of West Bengal, the Hon’ble Calcutta High court held that,
“Azan is essential part of Islam but not the usage of microphone and loudspeakers in the early
morning, therefore the restricted the usage of microphones and speakers before 7 A.M in the
morning , as it affected the basic human and fundamental rights of the citizens.”35

In the case of Ajmer v. Syed Ali, the court through its ruling drew a fine line between to the
practices essential to a religion and confined the protection of these essential practices under article
25 and 26 of Indian constitution.

In the case of Arjun Gopal v. Union of India36 it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

31
Tulsidas, Sri Råmacaritamånasa, 1633.
32
World History Encyclopedia. 2021. Ramayana. [online] Available at:
https://www.worldhistory.org/The_Ramayana/ [Accessed 20 November 2021].
33
Tulsidas, Sri Råmacaritamånasa, 1633.
34
Church of God (Full Gospel) v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association [2000] AIR (SC).
35
AIR 1999 Cal 15
36
(2017) 1 SCC 412
18

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

that the health of citizens should be given utmost priority over the financial or religious interest of
the people and mentioned that regulation of firecrackers is necessary which will result in ultimate
prohibition.

III.2. Bursting of crackers as valid custom.

Custom is a continuous practice of certain habits under like circumstances subject to the norms of
society, these habits must be beneficial for the people and the continuous practice of these practices
is called custom. – Dr Allen 37

• Reasonableness- a custom must be reasonable in nature and it must be taken into

consideration that customs are not absolute, if it is opposed to the public policy, against the
norms of justice and public utility.

• Peaceful enjoyment – a custom must be enjoyed peacefully, in order to be become a valid

custom over a period of time.

In the case of Raja Verma vs Ravi Verma38 it was held by the privy council that if a custom which
is opposed to public policy and principles of justice, equity and good conscience then such custom
must be invalidated.

Further in the case of Mst. Sardar Bibi v. Haq Nawaz Khan39 it was observed that the court is at
a liberty to reject a custom as a rule of law if it is contrary to justice, equity and good conscience.

In case of Sona. Krishnamoorthy vs The Commissioner, Writ Appeal (MD) No.243 of 2009, the
madras high court held that “it is not every custom and practice that could be placed on a high
pedestal along with those religious rites and rituals, which are inviolable.” Further it was held
that, “a custom which has been in practice for a long time and if it is not according to religious
text, the fact that such practice has been practiced for a long time doesn’t give absolute protection
under Article 25 and 26 of Indian constitution.”

The act of bursting firecrackers is against the public policy and it is acting as an infringement to the

37
Pranjape, N., 2016. Allahabad: Central Law Agency.
38
AIR 1964 Ker 123
39
Mst. Sardar Bibi v. Haq Nawaz Khan [1934] (Lahore High Court).
19

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

fundamental rights of the people of living in a peaceful and safe environment , further the act of bursting
of crackers during Diwali has no historical significance and the said act doesn’t fall under the ambit of
essential practices, it is an invalid custom which has been developed by the people over the years and it not
a reasonable practice in 21st century, where it is causing significant damage to the lives of people.

Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that with all merits and the facts cited above,
the practice of bursting crackers is not an essential practice under Article 25 of Constitution of India.
Hence, bursting of firecrackers is neither an essential practice nor a valid custom.

20

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble
Court be pleased to:

1. Issue a ban on the use and sale of firecrackers in the NCT of Delhi.
2. Issue a ban on the import of firecrackers from other States.
3. Order and direct the government to take corrective measures to ensure protection of
health of the general public and preservation of environment.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

And for this act of kindness the respondent shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.

Respectfully Submitted

S/d_________________

Counsels for Petitioner

21

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER