Legal and environmental experts have questioned the Supreme Court’s recent modification of the complete firecracker ban in the Delhi-NCR region.

The Court permitted the sale and use of ‘green crackers’ and allowed fireworks during festive occasions, raising concerns about enforcement feasibility, compliance mechanisms, and impacts on already critical air quality.

Observers noted that revisiting the prior order at the request of authorities who previously failed to enforce the ban sent a troubling message. The development suggested that the government and manufacturers effectively secured relaxation following a change in the bench.

The Supreme Court, led by CJI BR Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran, has permitted the sale and bursting of green crackers in the Delhi-NCR region for Diwali between October 18 and 21.

The Court directed that only NEERI-certified crackers with QR codes can be sold, and only through licensed vendors. Online sales remain prohibited. Bursting is allowed strictly between 6:00–7:00 AM and 8:00–10:00 PM.

Authorities have been asked to monitor compliance closely, with penal consequences for violations. The ban on traditional firecrackers continues, aimed at protecting air quality and public health.

The Kerala High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking action against the illegal destruction of mangrove forests in Kunhimangalam Village, Kannur, but issued directions to restore the area.

The Court instructed the Central and State governments and local authorities to work together to clear waste dumped in the protected zone and to restore the mangrove forest by replanting saplings within three months.

The Court also ordered the State to set up a permanent monitoring system by forming a survey team to prevent illegal activities in the area.

The Court emphasised the ecological importance of mangroves in protecting biodiversity.

[PP Rajan v State of Kerala & Ors.]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while hearing a plea challenging restrictions on the sale and purchase of green crackers under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, observed that business activities can be curtailed but environmental protection must not suffer.

The Court stressed the need to balance economic interests with public health and environmental concerns, noting that restrictions on green crackers are necessary to curb pollution. 

The Court further observed that the extent of such restrictions falls within the domain of policy and may not warrant judicial interference.

The case will be heard next on October 16.

[Alandhar Fireworks Association v State of Punjab & Ors]

The Kerala High Court granted regular bail to a 70-year-old man accused of killing a leopard using a cable trap in a reserve forest. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas considered the petitioner’s advanced age, lack of prior criminal record, and time spent in custody.

The petitioner faced charges under the Kerala Forest Act and the Wildlife (Protection) Act for trespassing, hunting, and related offences.

The Court noted insufficient evidence regarding who laid the trap or its exact location within the reserve forest. Bail was granted with conditions, taking into account the prima facie gaps in the prosecution’s case.

[Baby V.J.  v  State of Kerala and Ors]

The Supreme Court has hinted at easing the blanket ban on firecrackers in Delhi-NCR ahead of Diwali, stressing the need to balance competing interests.

A Bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran reserved its verdict on pleas seeking permission to manufacture and sell green firecrackers.

The Court heard the Centre’s proposal to allow only NEERI-certified green crackers under strict regulations and time slots.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the Court to relax the 2018 ban, arguing that limited use during festivals would not significantly impact air quality and would respect cultural traditions.

[In Re: Ban on Firecrackers]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has suspended the life sentence of murder convict Mahesh Sharma on the condition that he plant and nurture 10 saplings, including fruit-bearing or neem/peepal trees.

Under the order, Sharma must furnish a bail bond of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties of the same amount.

He is also required to submit geo-tagged photographs through the NISARG App of the planted trees to the trial court within 30 days of release, and update every three months.

The Court cautioned that Sharma’s bail would be cancelled if he caused “embarrassment and harassment” to the complainant. The case has been disposed of in relation to the IA under these terms.

[Subhas Sharma and Others v State of M.P.]

The Supreme Court has suggested the imposition of strict consequences for those who engage in stubble burning, leading to air pollution.

The Bench headed by the Chief Justice further emphasised that while farmers are important for our country, their harmful actions cannot be overlooked.

Stubble burning is the practice of burning leftover straw after harvesting crops to get the field ready for the next batch of crops. This practice is one of the most significant causes of air pollution in Punjab, Haryana and Delhi.

[Re: Filling of Vacant Posts in the State Pollution Control Boards and Pollution Control Committees]

The Delhi High Court has extended the parole of a murder convict by four weeks to help him save his 1.5-acre farmland damaged by recent floods.

The Court noted that the floods were an “Act of God” and the convict’s presence was essential to protect his family’s only source of livelihood.

The convict had sought an extension on the last day of his parole, arguing that agricultural work remained unfinished due to heavy rains.

His plea also stressed that his family depends on the farm for education and daily needs.

[Praveen Rana v State GNCT of Delhi]

The Supreme Court has given a clean chit to Vantara (Greens Zoological Rescue & Rehabilitation Centre, Jamnagar) in allegations of smuggling, money laundering, mistreatment of animals, and procedural violations.

The decision follows a report by an SC-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) chaired by former Justice Jasti Chelameswar, which found no wrongdoing by the facility.

The Court directed that no judicial, statutory, or administrative forum shall entertain any further complaints based on the same set of allegations.

It also noted Vantara’s compliance with multiple laws, including the Wildlife Protection Act 1972, the Customs Act 1962, the PMLA 2002, and other applicable acts.

[CR Jaya Sukin vs. Union of India].

The Gujarat Pollution Control Board has briefed the High Court about the procedures it has implemented to manage waste and promote eco-friendly practices during the Ambaji Padyatra, which is undertaken by devotees to the Ambaji Temple in Banaskantha.

The GPCB said that it has distributed 10,000 reusable steel bottles in exchange for over 1 lakh used plastic ones, installed cloth bag vending machines and reverse vending machines for collecting plastic bottles.

The Court was dealing with a PIL highlighting the non-disposal of plastic waste in the vicinity of the temple on the Girnar Hill in Junagadh, which is deemed to be an eco-sensitive zone.

[Amit Manibhai Panchal v State of Gujarat and Ors.]

The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that the Pollution Control Board has the jurisdiction to impose environmental compensation while dealing with a case under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

The Bench relied on the cases of Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action etc. v Union of India and others, and Delhi Pollution Control Committee v Lodhi  Property Company Ltd., where the SC correlated the power of the State Government with that of the Central Government to issue directions to a polluting industry to pay a certain amount of compensation and carry out remedial measures.

[M/S Ramesh Dyeing And Washing, Ghaziabad Thru Proprietor Ramesh Chand V State Of U.P.]

The Karnataka High Court has put a temporary stay on the installation of a Parashurama (a mythological warrior-sage) statue in Karkala, citing the need to examine legal permissions and environmental impact. 

The order came on petitions alleging violations of coastal regulation zone norms and lack of public consultation.

Petitioners argued that neglecting or restricting the installation, maintenance, and worship of the statue infringes the fundamental right to freely practice religion.

The Court clarified that the stay is interim and meant to ensure compliance with environmental laws and procedural safeguards before any final decision on the project.

[Uday Shetty Muniyal v State of Karnataka & Others]

The Ministry of Environment has approved the creation of an independent cadre of environment auditors under the Environment Audit Rules, 2025.

These auditors will support State Pollution Control Boards in verifying whether upcoming projects comply with environmental laws.

The move follows concerns over manpower shortages, limited capacity, and inadequate infrastructure that hinder effective monitoring of a growing number of projects.

The scheme aims to improve regulatory oversight by ensuring transparency, accountability, and stricter compliance, while strengthening environmental governance across states.