Priya Gour
Published on: 5 August, 2022 at 20:33 IST
A sensitive stand was taken by the Karnataka High Court where it upheld the ban on firecrackers in areas of Bangalore. The court emphasized on the enormous environmental pollution caused by their use apart from health hazards. The Court also said that they are ‘detrimental to mother nature.’
A ban was imposed by the Director General of Police in 2013 on the sale of firecrackers in congested areas of Bengaluru. However, a petition was moved before the court, requesting a stay on the ban.
It was argued in the petition that the ban hampers their right to carry the business under Article 19.
To this, the Court stated that the explosive substances being ‘res extra commercium’ (things that may not be the object of private rights) like liquor, poison, this fundamental right can not be claimed by citizens absolutely. (Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to carry on trade and business of the kind.)
Thus, a Single-Judge Bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit rejected the petition in July.
The bench was convinced with the ban and pointed out the injurious impacts along with health related hazards. It noted:
“It needs no research to know that the production, transportation & bursting of crackers (including those with reduced emission such as green crackers) are detrimental to ‘mother nature’, in varying degrees & kind. Firecrackers, apart from being health hazard and risk to life & limb, cause enormous environmental pollution; in dense cities like Bangalore that are plagued with ceaseless sound pollution, the bursting of crackers would only add to the existing woes.”
The Bench while upholding the ban back in July, said that there is no requirement to lift it in those congested areas.
The Bench emphasised on the ill effects of firecrackers and the irreversible damage to the environment. Not just humans, especially infants, expectant mothers & patients (heart ailment & high blood pressure), but animals & birds are equally affected by the violence due to the use of firecrackers.
The Court quoted a scripture which said:
(Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.14) edict: ‘sarve bhavantu sukhinaha, sarve santu niraamayaha…’ It nearly translates to: let all people be happy and all creatures be free from affliction.”
“Those who have lost their eyes, the world becomes blind to them for the rest of their lives. This would make the makers of the Constitution to shiver in their grave. There cannot be a greater violation of the right to life, limb & liberty.”
Thereby, the plea was rejected by upholding the ban imposed.