A question before the Supreme Court centred on how to weigh firecracker use during Diwali festivities in Delhi and the National Capital Region against the protection of public health. Three justices — Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana — indicated during proceedings that raising public awareness would be preferable to imposing an outright ban.

Steering people toward lower-risk conduct, rather than laying down an outright ban, was the path the court indicated. Bench members weighed in on a range of factors tied to deteriorating air quality, from the burning of crop stubble and festive firecrackers to shortcomings in how waste is handled.

The Chief Justice noted that although the bench remains attentive to religious feeling, the broader public bears responsibility for steering festival practices toward healthier alternatives. Remarks from the bench pointed toward the need for an organised approach to air-quality concerns, with justices urging people to reduce their use of firecrackers on a voluntary basis while also recognising the place those traditions hold in community life.

At one point in the proceedings, Justice Bagchi turned to the question of what religious grounds, if any, underpin the tradition of setting off firecrackers. The amicus curiae set the inquiry in motion by placing on record both the health risks tied to air pollution and the practical difficulties of putting any restrictions into effect.

During the hearing, Justice Bagchi questioned whether the act of setting off firecrackers carries any genuine religious basis, raising the matter in the context of documented health impacts linked to the practice. The filing countered that the core tension involves balancing public health considerations against the observance of religious traditions, adding that deities would in all probability take a dim view of any harm those festivities brought upon people.

Pollution's documented toll on health falls unevenly across the population, with children, older adults, and people managing pre-existing conditions bearing a disproportionate share of the burden. Acknowledging the weight of the matter, the amicus nonetheless noted that any restrictions put in place would likely achieve little without the means to actually enforce them. Putting written rules into practice at ground level, he observed, routinely proves far more demanding than the legal text alone would lead one to expect.

Reservations about the practicality of binding directives came through in remarks by CJI Kant, who pointed to the need for any judicial orders to remain both workable and grounded in reality. Residents were urged to mark the occasion in ways that account for air-quality concerns, including keeping firework activity within approved time windows, an approach that mirrors steps adopted on previous occasions.

Broader public understanding of the toll that firecrackers take on both human health and the surrounding environment was something CJI Kant urged people to develop. The plan put forward called for curbing the availability of fireworks varieties linked to the highest pollution levels, while keeping lower-emission options on shelves, as a way to encourage more environmentally considerate celebration practices.

Public awareness drives — aimed at helping people distinguish between firecrackers that pose health and environmental risks and those considered less harmful — were put forward by CJI Kant as a practical step worth pursuing. He called for broad distribution of materials encouraging reduced firecracker use, paired with promotion of established practices such as lighting lamps and using sparklers.

The bench also turned its attention to the separate matter of crop-residue burning, a practice that compounds air-quality deterioration during this period. During the hearing, Justice Bagchi drew attention to efforts by certain states to gather crop residue and find commercial outlets for its application. Before the bench, the Chief Justice raised the question of whether stubble could generate income for farmers if it were brought into commodity trading.

Policies covering both in-situ and ex-situ approaches to crop residue management were outlined before the court by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati. A detailed affidavit laying out the steps taken to date would be filed by the Union government, she told the court. Outlining a range of approaches and monetary incentives to address pollution levels, the Centre had pursued multiple paths — a position the amicus brought to the court's attention.

The upcoming status report, Bhati indicated, would cover steps already put in place, continuing efforts to prevent pollution, and the direction planned for tackling air quality going forward. A follow-up proceeding in the matter has been scheduled for October 15.