Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling: Nationwide Firecracker Ban in Beriyam and the Collective Responsibility for Pollution Control 2023-24

The Attorney General has been instructed by a Division Bench to hold a “meaningful discussion” regarding outstanding recommendations with the central government.

The Supreme Court’s Justices S.K. Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia pressed the Centre to act on 14 recommendations—five of which had been reaffirmed by the Collegium twice—that had not received a response. The motion was made on November 7, 2023. The Bangalore Advocates Association had submitted a request for a hearing regarding the prompt appointment of suggested judges.

The Bench observed that even in cases involving the relocation of judges from one court to another, the Collegium is favouring names that are favoured by the Centre in a selective manner. Justice Kaul verbally stated, “We have stressed again on [Venkatramani] that once these people are already appointed [as judges], where do they carry out their judicial duties should not be a concern for the government.” One scenario that the Bench warned against is one in which “[the Supreme] Court or the Collegium is forced to take a decision that is not acceptable.”

Attorney Prashant Bhushan: “We need to act decisively now”
In support of the judiciary taking a strong stand, Bhushan contended that the Court has provided the Centre with “more than enough leverage.” He continued, “The government is under the impression that it can get away with anything… because the court is not being strict.” Subsequently, Bhushan asked the Law Minister to issue a notice of contempt of court. He replied, “Let them come and say they have instructions from above.” He declared that the names are subject to a “veto” by the Centre.

Arvind Datar, a senior advocate, stated that recommendations’ acceptance has been a “long-standing problem.” He continued, “It is not an issue with this government or that government.” He pushed the Bench to “legislate” in accordance with Article 141, which requires all courts to follow the rulings of the Supreme Court. He proposed setting a deadline for the Court to avoid “repeatedly pushing the Court.”

Justice Kaul: Young solicitors are discouraged by delays.

Justice Kaul emphasised that judges’ internal seniority is hampered by the practise of accepting only a portion of the Central government’s recommendations. “This selection and choice should stop,” he declared. This isn’t meant to come across as casual, but I have discussed this with the Collegium.”

At the next hearing, which is set for November 20, 2023, Venkatramani is expected to have made significant progress, according to the Bench.

The Supreme Court voiced concerns on Tuesday regarding the “pick and choose” approach taken by the Centre in approving the Collegium’s recommendations for judicial appointments. The highest court noted that the seniority of recommended judges has become problematic as a result of this approach.

The Court responded, “This choosing and choosing should stop… it’s not a casual comment, but we have discussed this with the Collegium.”

The remarks were made by Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia regarding the appointment of judges to high courts. They declared that they would not think twice to issue orders in the event that the government failed to find a solution.

“We have brought up the lack of progress with the Attorney General. Because it’s being done selectively, delay is a major worry. The AG claims that the government is pursuing it. The Bench expressed hope that the circumstances won’t make it obvious that the Collegium or this Supreme court is making an unacceptable decision.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court made it apparent that all states in the nation are subject to the prohibition on fireworks during Beriyam, not just Delhi-NCR. This decision addresses the problem of air and noise pollution brought on by customs, which has broad implications for the entire country.

The Court’s ruling, which was first put into effect in 2018 to reduce pollution brought on by customary practises, will now be felt across the entire country. The Court considered the negative impact that air pollution has on the states that surround the nation’s capital, Delhi.

In addition, the Court ordered the Meteorological Department to move quickly to address this issue. This decision shows the Court’s dedication to safeguarding the environment and the general public’s health by taking a proactive stance in resolving the problem of air and noise pollution.

The ruling serves as a reminder that geographic boundaries shouldn’t be a barrier to environmental concerns. The country’s residents are working together to make the environment cleaner and healthier. The Supreme Court’s decisions are a positive first step towards a future that is more ecologically conscious and sustainable.