Firecrackers Have No Sanctity in Religious Texts: Delhi HC

There is nothing to suggest that bursting of firecrackers is related to any religious tenet: Delhi HC

(Photo: iStock)

Firecrackers are capable of causing harm like firearms, and hospitals have to gear up for the “onslaught” on Diwali night, the Delhi High Court has said while rejecting a woman’s plea for a temporary licence to sell crackers in the national capital.

Noting that there was a public outcry over the bursting of firecrackers, Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw also said firecrackers do not have any religious sanctity and they not only adversely affect the environment but cause various ailments too.

I may add that it is not as if firecrackers are capable of any less harm than an arm within the meaning of Arms Act.

Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

He further added that licences to sell crackers should be granted by following a rational criteria.

Owing to less stringent control on use, firecrackers are available far more easily than an arm and are rampantly used, which over the years has resulted in incidents of fire and injury on the occasion of Diwali, having become a routine affair and multiplying annually.

So much so that the city hospitals have to gear up for the onslaught and to be in a state of preparedness, especially on the night of Diwali. Certainly, none can claim a right to burst firecrackers at the cost of injury to another

The court’s observation came while declining to interfere with Delhi police Commissioner’s October 31 decision to refuse Temporary Fireworks Licence to Manisha Sharma for sale of firecrackers in the national capital.

Inspite of the Supreme Court having limited the number of hours during which the firecrackers can be burst/displayed on the festival of Diwali, the same remains more on paper than in fact, owing to the implicit difficulties in enforcement.

“The only way of enforcement is to limit the availability of firecrackers in the city,” the judge said, adding that “I am of the view that it is not in public interest for this court to direct the authorities concerned to grant temporary licence to sell firecrackers when the authorities have refused the same to the petitioner.”

The judge said he also considered whether there can be any religious right entitled to constitutional protection for bursting firecrackers and axiomatically to carry on business therein on the occasion of Diwali.

I have not found the firecrackers to be having any sanctity in religious text. The festival of Diwali though called a ‘festival of lights’ has religious context only in illuminating the buildings of city/town traditionally with the diyas which over a period of time got substituted with candles. There is nothing to suggest that bursting of firecrackers is related to any religious tenet.

The court said the people of Delhi lived in multi-storied buildings with no open spaces to burst crackers which have the propensity to enter and explode in a neighbour’s house. “It is for this reason only that several other countries faced with the same issue have prohibited bursting/use of firecrackers within the city area and earmarked open spaces particularly water fronts, where the fireworks can be displayed,” the judge said.

In his 11-page order the judge also said bursting firecrackers impactedthe environment and caused skin problems, itching, rashes, sinusitis and eye infections.

“Delhi today is severally impacted environmentally, with the newspapers reporting the air quality to have attained dangerous standards severally affecting the breathing of citizens, owing to burning of paddy in agricultural lands in neighbouring states.

“The cases of breathing ailments are on the ascendancy, frequently become fatal and which was unheard of in earlier times when the practise of bursting firecrackers as an expression of joy may have commenced..,” the judge said.

We cannot refuse to take a step, taking of which is imminent today and not taking of which may be too late. There is today a public outcry with respect to the bursting of firecrackers.

Justice Endlaw also said, “I am conscious of the petition filed in public interest on behalf of three minor children filed in the Supreme Court in this context and have perused the orders...and do not find the view herein taken to be in conflict therewith.”