[op-ed snap] Don’t ban, say no

Note4students

Mains Paper 2: Polity | Separation of powers between various organs, dispute redressal mechanisms & institutions

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important:

Prelims level: Air pollution and factors related to it

Mains level: Efforts being done by government, society to reduce air pollution and their outcomes, way forward

Context

1. The Supreme Court has put its weight behind the 2016 ban on the sale of fireworks in Delhi-NCR
2. This was imposed in response to an unusual plea filed by children affected by air pollution

Is ban a right step?

1. A ban is an inefficient instrument
2. Aimed at restricting a celebration, the ban on firecrackers may alienate people who were otherwise receptive to the idea of giving up or cutting down on the fireworks
3. Besides, it would have the predictable effect of driving sales underground at inflated prices

Effect on Supreme court’s authority

1. A Supreme Court ban which cannot be implemented in spirit would have the unfortunate effect of undermining the authority of the apex court in the eyes of the people

Other factors

1. While the court has admitted that other factors like stubble burning contribute to the disastrous air quality of Delhi, the focus on fireworks makes its response seem unequal
2. Livelihoods will be harmed by the court’s order

Judicial overreach?

1. Matters of policy and implementation are ideally left to the legislature and executive
2. The court has a moral obligation to step in if they are in complete dereliction of their duty to the people
3. Since governments and society itself have shown an inclination to stop polluting practices, the last resort has been unnecessarily invoked

What court should have done?

1. The Supreme Court could have urged government to intensify its efforts to influence the public will, and the process could have played out under its cautionary eye
2. That would have been a better solution than to impose a ban which may be observed more in the breach