The Supreme Court had been trying crackers for decades. Taking note of the harmful effects of fireworks on the ambient air and lungs, eyes and ears of “particularly sick and aged” people, the SC on November 11, 2016 directed the Central Government to “all such licenses as permits for sale of fireworks”. “Wholesale and retail, within the area of NCR; the suspension shall remain in force till further orders of the SC; and, no such license shall be granted or renewed till further orders”.
On September 12, 2017, it lifted the complete ban and stated that the sale of fireworks by permanent licensees must be in conformity with the above directives and must be fully compliant with the Explosives Regulations. On October 23, 2018, it allowed the bursting of “green crackers”, banning the use of barium salts in the manufacture of fireworks. It had ordered that “on the days of Diwali or any other festival like Gurupurab etc., it (the bursting of crackers) shall be strictly from 8 pm to 10 pm. On Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve, it shall be at 11.55 pm. from 12.30 am only”.
On October 29 this year, the Supreme Court had made the state governments accountable for implementing its orders. “Any lapse on the part of the States, Union Territories and their agencies will be taken very seriously. If it is found that any banned firecrackers are manufactured, sold and used in a particular area, Chief Secretary, Secretary (HouseThe concerned State(s) and Commissioner of Police of the area concerned, District Superintendent of Police of the concerned area and SHO/Police The officer-in-charge of the concerned police station will be held personally responsible,” it had warned.
All these hidden threats to stop the police and the state administration could not translate into a quiet Diwali. With only one policeman per 642 persons in India, it was impossible for the police force to stop those, who were on a defiance mission this year, from bursting crackers. As a result, there was no check whether the firecrackers were “green” or “dangerous”. There was also no enforcement of a two-hour window for bursting of crackers as the fireworks started much before 8 pm and continued after midnight of Diwali.
The bursting of firecrackers in defiance of SC orders and decisions of state governments preceded the continuing defiance of the SC’s landmark verdict in a case related to the Shaheen Bagh anti-CAA protest, where protesters blocked one of Delhi’s main main roads for months Was.
The Supreme Court, while respecting the citizens’ right to protest against any law, had firmly observed, “We have to make it very clear that public avenues and public places cannot be occupied in this manner and that too indeterminate. Till time. Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the dissenting demonstrations should take place alone at designated places. The present case was not even of protests in an unspecified area, but blockade of a public road which caused serious inconvenience to the passengers. We cannot accept the contention of the applicants that whenever they wish to protest, a certain number of people can gather.”
“Thus, we have no hesitation in concluding that such occupation of public roads, whether at site or elsewhere for protest is not acceptable and the administration should take action to keep the areas clear of encroachments or obstructions. The Supreme Court had thus termed the blocking of highways by farmers opposing the three agricultural laws as a sort of illegal action.
Having done so, the SC is now engaged in an exercise to drive home the farmer organizations who are continuing their protest on the highways. But, the exercise appears to be in vain as the leader of the movement – Sanyukta Kishan Union – has refused to appear before the court on the issue.
Should the Supreme Court have left these two issues – regulation of the bursting of firecrackers and removal of protesters from public streets – to the executive and not jump into the fray? In 1990, in Mallikarjuna Rao v State of Andhra Pradesh, the SC had observed, “It is clear that the court has a very limited role and in its exercise, the judicial is not open to law (the authority to). Nor can the court make laws.” Nor does it have the power to issue directions to the legislature to make laws in any particular manner.”
Almost 30 years later in Ashwini Kumar Vs. Union of India The matter, the SC had said in 2019, “judges are not accountable and accountable as the political executive is to the legislature and the elected representatives are to the electorate… The power of judicial review has expanded, encompassing the concept of social. and economic justice.”
“Nevertheless, in exercise of this power of judicial review, the courts do not encroach upon the territory marked by the Constitution for the legislature and the executive, as the courts examine the validity and legality of a law or governmental action, and not those behind it. of knowledge. The relative merits or demerits of a legislative measure or government action. Neither does the constitution permit courts to instruct, advise, or preach to others in areas reserved for them by the constitution, provided the legislature or executive violates its constitutional limits or statutory conditions,” it had said.
Referring to the phrase “all power is of an encroachment nature”, which the judiciary examines while exercising the power of judicial review, it has been observed that the judiciary should be wary of encroachment beyond its limits as the only restriction on that is Self-imposed discipline of self-restraint,” it said.
.