ARJUN GOPALAND ORS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 11 S.C.R. 812 · Decided: 11-11-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR, S.A. BOBDE, A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Directions issued
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
[2016] 11S.C.R.812 
ARJUN GOPALAND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
I.A. No.4 
In 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 728of2015) 
NOVEMBER 11,2016 
[T. S. THAKUR, CJI, A. K. SIKRI ANDS. A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
Constitution of India - Parts III, IV and !VA - Right to clean 
air - Writ petition u!Art.32 seeking emergent reliefs in relation to 
the extreme air pollution in the National Capital Region (NCR), owing 
to use of fireworks especially during festival/marriage season -
Held: Fireworks release a deadly concoction of fumes into an almost-
still winter air in Delhi, causing extreme air pollution during this 
time -Ambient air quality during the Diwali period shows that air 
pollution across the capital has reached record levels and has 
become intolerable - Severe air pollution in NCR is leading to 
multiple diseases and other extreme health related effects which leads 
to abject deprivation of a range of constitutionally embedded rights 
that the residents of NCR ought to have enjoyed - Thus, when the 
Air Quality Index in NCR is abysmally and threateningly severe, 
allowingfree trade in fireworks constitute a serious invasion of the 
Freedoms and Rights conferred on citizens by Part Ill of the 
Constitution - A just constitutional balance, must overwhelmingly 
prioritize the harmful effects of this hazardous air on present and 
future generations, over the immediate commercial constraints of 
the manufacturers and suppliers of fireworks - The balance must 
heavily tilt in favour of citizens in general - Therefore, in view of 
G grave air quality situation in NCR, Central Government directed to 
suspend the licenses to store and sell fireworks in NCR till further 
orders - Jn addition, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) 
directed to study and prepare a report on harmful effects of materials 
used in the manufacture of fireworks - Fundamental Rights -
H 
Directive Principles of State Policy - Fundamental Duties -
812 
ARJUN GOPALAND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
813 
Environment - Pollution -Air/noise pollution. 
A 
Explosive Rules, 2008 - r.118, sub-rule (5) - Suspension! 
Cancellation of licence - Held: sub-rule 5 confers on the Central 
Government a power to suspend or cancel a license if it considers 
so to do in public interest, even without giving an opportunity of 
being heard to the licensee - Thus, grave air quality situation is one 
B 
such case, where the licenses to store and sell fireworks in NCR can 
be suspended- Directed accordingly - Explosives Act, 1884. 
MC.Mehta v. Union of India: 1998(6) SCC 60: 1998 
(3) SCR 340 and 1998(9) SCC 589; M C. Mehta v. 
Union oflndia 1998 (8) SCC 648; M C. Mehta v. Union 
C 
of India 1998(8) SCC 206 : 1998 (2) Suppl. SCR 24; 
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat 
(2005) 8 SCC 534 : 2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 582; Vellore 
Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of lndia, (1996) 5 SCC 
647 : 1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 241 - referred to. 
o 
Case Law Reference 
1998 (3) SCR 340 
referred to 
Para 10 
1998 (8) sec 648 
referred to 
Para 10 
1998 (2) Suppl. SCR 24 
referred to 
ParalO 
2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 582 
referred to 
Para 18 
1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 241 
referred to 
Para 18 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I. A. No. 4 in Writ Petition 
(C) No. 728of2015. 
Under A1ticle 32 of the Constitution oflndia. 
K. K. Venugopal, Gopal Subramania, Sr. Advs., Ms. Pooja Dhar, 
Zeeshan Diwan Ms. Sharda Deshmuk, Yijeth, Gagan Gupta, Rahul Gupta, 
Shekhar Gupta, Ms. Ira Gupta,Anantap Mishra, Yoginder Handoo, Sachin 
Mittal, Ms. Neha, Pravesh Ms. Pranchi, Mis. Manoj Swarup & Co., 
Advs. for the Petitioners. 
N. K. Kaul, ASG .. C. A. Sund ram, Sr. Adv., Ms. Rohini Musa, 
Zaffar Inayat, Ms. Yimla Sinha, Ms. Binu Tamta, B. K. Prasad, Ms. Yibha 
Datta Makhija,Anubhav Kumar, Ms. Disha Yaish, S. WasimA. Qadri, 
Ajay Sharma, GS. Makkar, Vijay Panjwani, Yibhu Shanker Mishra, 
E 
F 
G 
H 
814 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
D.S. Mahra, M/s. Corporate Law Group, Chirag M. Shroff, Debojit 
Borkavati, Advs. for the Respondents. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
I. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking emergent 
reliefs in relation to the extreme air pollution in the National Capital Region 
(hereinafter "NCR"). 
2. 
We have heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal and Ms. Vibha Datta 
Makhija, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. C.A. Sundaram, 
learned senior counsel for the respondent. The petitioner has sought 
wide ranging reliefs
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.