Read Time: 06 minutes

During the hearing of a matter concerning pollution through Firecrackers, Justice MR Shah of the Supreme Court on Tuesday remarked that "one of the reasons for the pendency (in the top court) is adjournment letters and personal difficulty". He added, "We give 5% weightage to junior counsels if they argue."

Upon Justice Shah's comment, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, on a lighter note, said that then the seniors will have to surrender their gowns.

The bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna were discussing the issue of pendency of matters in the apex court when Dave pointed out that there are 70,000 pending cases in the Supreme Court.

Justice Shah further added, "The judges are not liked if they don't allow adjournments. We don't want to work for the certificates of others."

Regarding the matter at hand, the bench posted the matter on July 22, 2022 for final hearing while making its stand clear that the matter will be disposed of before Diwali.

Earlier, on March 21, the Supreme Court had agreed to hear the pending case pertaining to the issue of the firecrackers ban after the same was mentioned by Senior Advocate Rajiv Dutta stating that this is the appropriate time for the matter to be heard and listed the matter for fixing a date for the final hearing.

Background

In September last year, Court had issued notice to firecracker manufacturers to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them for using banned chemicals such as barium and barium salt.

The bench had issued the notice pursuant to the receipt of a preliminary report by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). On perusal of the report, the bench had remarked that certain manufacturers had not only used barium but also had procured huge quantities of it.

Court had further noted that the manufacturers were in violation of Explosive Substance Act,1884, and of the previous orders of the Supreme Court banning the use of barium.

The bench, after consulting with Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General and senior advocate Gopal Shankarnarayanan, who was representing the petitioners in the matter, had directed the CBI to furnish a copy of the report to the manufacturers by the next day i.e. September 30, 2021. The manufacturers had also been permitted to file their response to report, if any.

The bench had stressed that the credibility of the lab report could not be called into question as they were issued by reputed laboratories, however the manufacturers were being granted time to reply in the interest of natural justice.

Notably, the bench had earlier noted, "We'll have to set up a liability on someone, otherwise this will not stop. It is a problem in our country, we have laws but they are not implemented, we want that our orders must be implemented in true spirit.”

The pending public interest litigation (PIL) is over the issue of pollution caused due to firecrackers and subsequent alarming degradation in the air quality.

Case Title: Arjun Gopal and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.