'Absolutely necessary': SC refuses to relax ban on firecrackers in Delhi-NCR
New Delhi, Apr 3 (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to relax the ban imposed on the manufacture, storage and sale on firecrackers in Delhi-NCR noting that air pollution levels remained alarming for a considerable time.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said a large section of the population worked on streets and was the worst affected by pollution.
Not everybody can afford an air purifier at their residence or place of work to fight pollution, the bench said.
"Several orders passed by this court during last six months bring on the record the horrible situation with which prevailed in Delhi due to very high levels of air pollution...Right to health is an essential part of Article 21 of the constitution so is the Right to live in a pollution free atmosphere," the court said.
Unless the court was satisfied that the pollution due to the "so-called" green crackers was bare minimum, there was no question of reconsidering the previous orders, it added.
The bench said restricting the ban on firecrackers in the Delhi-NCR region just around Diwali would be meaningless, as it could be purchased and stored in advance.
The top court said the orders passed from time to time would indicate that the directions and ban on the use of firecrackers was warranted by an "extraordinary situation" created in Delhi.
Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, who is amicus curiae in the case, informed the bench that all four NCR states had banned firecrackers, but online sale remained an issue in some states like Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan.
The apex court also raised the issue of noise pollution caused by bursting of firecrackers.
The top court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by firecracker manufactures seeking relaxation of ban and permission to sell green crackers.
The court said manufacturers also have to do their duty towards environment under Article 51A of the Constitution and told them to cooperate.
"We are on whether there is any study on whether any pollution is caused by green crackers. We are appealing to all of you please don't place these applications. The ban is limited to NCR Delhi. You have the entire India open for sale of firecrackers," the bench said.
The top court had in December directed the Uttar Pradesh and Haryana governments to impose a complete ban on firecrackers until further orders.
The court had noted the Delhi government had enforced a complete ban on the manufacture, storage and sale, including delivery of firecrackers through online marketing round the year with immediate effect.
"We are of the view that this ban will be effective only when other states forming part of the NCR region impose similar measures. Even the state of Rajasthan has imposed a similar ban in that part of State of Rajasthan which falls in NCR regions. For the time being we direct the states of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana to impose a similar ban which is imposed by the state of Delhi," the bench had said.
Expressing serious concerns over high pollution levels in Delhi during Diwali, the apex court previously took exception to the violation of court orders and said its directives on firecrackers ban were "hardly implemented".
The apex court was hearing a plea filed by M C Mehta in 1985 seeking directions to curb air pollution in the national capital and adjoining areas.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
BCI urges CJI to take action against Andhra HC judge for sending young lawyer to 24-hour custody
New Delhi (PTI): The Bar Council of India on Wednesday sought the urgent intervention of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant following a "deeply disturbing" incident where a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reportedly sent a young advocate to
24-hour judicial custody over a procedural lapse.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairperson and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, in a formal representation, termed the conduct of Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao "grossly inappropriate" and "damaging to the confidence of the Bar".
“I most respectfully request your Lordship to kindly take immediate institutional cognizance of the matter and call for the video recording of the proceedings, the order passed, and the surrounding circumstances.
“I further request that appropriate administrative action may kindly be considered, including withdrawal of judicial work from the learned Judge pending review, his immediate transfer to some far off High Court, and his nomination for appropriate judicial training/orientation on court management, judicial temperament, Bar-Bench relations, and proportional exercise of contempt/judicial authority,” Mishra wrote.
This representation is made to preserve the “dignity, moral authority and public confidence of the judiciary”, he said, adding, “Judges command the highest respect not by fear, but by fairness, patience, restraint and constitutional humility”.
The communication urged the CJI to intervene at the earliest to ensure that the faith of Bar, particularly young advocates, in the protective and corrective role of the judiciary is restored.
The controversy stems from proceedings on May 5.
According to the BCI, a video circulating online shows Justice Rao rebuking a young advocate who was unable to produce a specific order copy during a hearing.
The letter said that despite the advocate "repeatedly seeking pardon and mercy" and claiming he was in physical pain, the judge remained "unmoved".
The judge allegedly told the lawyer, "now you will learn," and mocked his experience before directing the Registrar and police personnel to take him into custody for 24 hours.
The BCI chairperson said that the judge’s actions lacked proportionality and fairness.
"The dignity of the court is not enhanced when a lawyer is made to beg for grace in open court and is still sent to custody for a procedural lapse," the letter said.
"A young lawyer... is an officer of the Court, still learning, still growing, and entitled to correction without humiliation," it added.
The bar body said that such actions create a "chilling effect" on the legal fraternity, particularly among junior members, and undermine the mutual respect required between the Bench and the Bar.
