Revision summary
Article 21 includes a right to a healthy environment and to freedom from unreasonable noise. Subhash Kumar, M.C. Mehta and Vellore supply the environmental reading; the 2005 In Re Noise Pollution case restricts cracker hours. Article 25 does not protect a right to burst crackers at any hour; Article 19(1)(g) is limitable under 19(6). The right therefore entails time, place and quality regulation, especially in polluted cities. A complete ban needs a stricter proportionality test; non-enforcement is the practical failure, not the absence of power.
Model answer
Introduction
Article 21 protects life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court has read into that Article a right to a healthy environment, clean air and freedom from unreasonable noise. Diwali is a religious and cultural festival; crackers are also a trade. The question is not whether Diwali may be celebrated, but whether the Constitution allows the State and the courts to regulate how crackers are burnt.
Body
Article 21 and a clean environment
- Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) treated the right to pollution-free water and air as part of Article 21.
- M.C. Mehta cases on air and on the Taj, Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (precautionary principle and polluter pays), and Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana tied municipal and industrial pollution to the right to life.
- Noise is a pollutant: the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, fix ambient standards and silence zones.
- If crackers push particulate matter and decibels past what a child, an old person, or an animal can bear, the State’s Article 21 duty is not optional charity; it is a legal duty to regulate.
Judgments on crackers and noise
- In Re: Noise Pollution (V), (2005) 5 SCC 733, the Supreme Court restricted the time for bursting firecrackers, typically keeping the night hours (about 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.) out of bounds, and it treated religious practice as subject to public health and to others’ rights.
- The Court has not held that Article 25 gives an unbounded right to explode crackers; essential religious practice does not include a particular explosive or a particular hour.
- Article 19(1)(g) of manufacturers is subject to 19(6) reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public; licensing, composition of chemicals, and sale hours are classic police-power tools.
- High Courts have, in several cities, added local restrictions on decibels, on the type of cracker, and on sale to children; those orders rest on the same Article 21 reading.
- The apex court has thus already answered the core: regulation is not only permitted; in a polluted city it may be required.
Does the right “entail” legal regulation?
- Entail means the right is incomplete unless the State makes and enforces rules: time, place, noise limit, chemical content, and a ban on the most toxic varieties where air is already unsafe.
- A total, permanent, nationwide ban is a harder question: proportionality under Articles 14, 19 and 25 would ask whether less restrictive means (green crackers, shorter windows, no-sale in silence zones) can protect life.
- For Diwali nights in dense cities, time regulation and quality regulation follow directly from the 2005 noise judgment and from the air-quality limb of Article 21.
- Enforcement is the weak limb: illegal sale, police inaction, and a social contest over “tradition” can make a good order a paper order.
- Animal welfare and the rights of the sick and of infants support regulation even when a healthy adult claims a cultural licence to burst at midnight.
A balanced constitutional answer
- Celebrate Diwali; regulate crackers. That is the line of Article 21 as the Court has drawn it.
- Rules should be published before the festival, applied without communal targeting, and backed by seizures and fines, not only by a press note.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD A[Article 21 life] --> E[Clean air and quiet] J[Noise Pollution 2005] E --> R[Regulate crackers] J --> R F[Arts 19 and 25] --> P[Proportional limits not unbounded ban] R --> D[Time place quality rules]
Conclusion
Yes. The right to a clean environment under Article 21 entails legal regulation of burning crackers during Diwali. The 2005 noise-pollution judgment and the clean-air cases already support time, place and quality limits. A total ban must still meet proportionality; regulation is the constitutional minimum, not an attack on the festival.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Did the Supreme Court ban Diwali?
No. It has regulated noise and timing of crackers. The festival can be celebrated without an unbounded right to explode at any hour.
-
Can trade in crackers be restricted?
Yes. Article 19(1)(g) allows reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) for public health, including licences, composition standards and sale hours.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2020 · Q2 · GS II · 10 marks
"Recent amendments to the Right to information Act will have profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission". Discuss. -
2019 · Q5 · GS II · 10 marks
What can France learn from the Indian Constitution's approach to secularism? -
2018 · Q2 · GS II · 10 marks
Whether National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) can enforce the implementation of constitutional reservation for the Scheduled Castes in the religious minority institutions? Examine. -
2018 · Q3 · GS II · 10 marks
Under what circumstances can the Financial Emergency be proclaimed by the President of India? What consequences follow when such a declaration remains in force? -
2017 · Q11 · GS II · 15 marks
Explain the salient features of the constitution(One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016. Do you think it is efficacious enough 'to remove cascading effect of taxes and provide for common national market for goods and services'? (250 words). -
2016 · Q2 · GS II · 12 marks
To what extent is Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, bearing marginal note "temporary provision with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir", temporary? Discuss the future prospects of this provision in the context of Indian polity. -
2016 · Q6 · GS II · 12 marks
What was held in the Coelho case? In this context, can you say that judicial review is of key importance amongst the basic features of the Constitution? -
2015 · Q6 · GS II · 12 marks
What are the major changes brought in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 through the recent ordinance promulgated by the President? How far will it improve India's dispute resolution mechanism? Discuss.
More from this topic
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2025 · GS II · 10 marks
Compare and contrast the President's power to pardon in India and in the USA. Are there any limits to it in both the countries? What are 'preemptive pardons'?
Indian Constitution
Article 72 (and 161) are exercised on aid and advice; Maru Ram, Kehar Singh, Epuru Sudhakar and Shatrughan Chauhan frame Indian limits and delay. The US Article II pardon is personal, federal-only, and barred in impeachment. Judicial review is stronger in India; political cost is the main US brake. A preemptive pardon forgives before conviction, as in Ford–Nixon. India has no working doctrine of preemptive pardon for the untried.
Q15 · UPSC Mains 2024 · GS II · 15 marks
Discuss India as a secular state and compare with the secular principles of the US constitution.
Indian Constitution
Indian secularism: Preamble, Articles 25–28, Bommai as basic structure, personal laws, State reform of Hindu law and regulation of temples. US secularism: First Amendment establishment and free exercise, Everson’s wall, Engel on school prayer, no millet personal law. India practises principled distance and social reform; the United States practises non-establishment. Minority educational rights under Article 30 have no US analogue of that form. Neither wall nor distance is a finished peace with majoritarian politics. Comparison is of method, not of piety.
Q12 · UPSC Mains 2024 · GS II · 15 marks
Right to privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty and is inherently protected under Article 21 of the constitution. Explain. In this reference discuss the law relating to D.N.A. testing of child in the womb to establish its paternity.
Indian Constitution
Puttaswamy held that privacy is part of Article 21 and that any restriction must be legal, necessary and proportionate. Section 112 of the Evidence Act treats a child born in a valid marriage as legitimate unless non-access is proved. Goutam Kundu and later cases refused to make DNA a routine paternity weapon in a private quarrel. A test on a child still in the womb adds miscarriage risk and collides with the woman’s bodily autonomy. Suchita Srivastava had already linked reproductive choice to personal liberty. Proportionality will rarely justify a prenatal paternity expedition. The law of paternity is not a right to inspect a womb.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.