“Loud sounds of firecrackers were heard. Upon arrival, the police team noticed the offenders fleeing the scene. Their identities remain unknown. By setting off loud firecrackers, they caused noise and air pollution, violating the orders of the National Green Tribunal and the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding firecrackers…”
This text, verbatim, appeared in five FIRs registered at Delhi’s Preet Vihar police station shortly after Diwali – part of the Delhi government’s punitive measures to tackle the capital’s noxious air.
Last month, the Supreme Court came down heavily on the Delhi police for failing to implement the firecracker ban. And last week, the Delhi government said it had decided to make the ban permanent. But an analysis of the cases lodged over bursting of firecrackers suggests a pattern that points to the absence of strict action.
In response to RTI queries, Newslaundry found that 423 FIRs were lodged between October 30 and November 2 across 11 of Delhi’s 15 police districts – four districts did not provide any data on the number of cases lodged.
Newslaundry subsequently zeroed down on two of these districts – East Delhi and Rohini – to understand the nature of the police action. These two had seen the registration of 93 FIRs, but a random selection suggests these cases were treated with kid gloves.
Importantly, the Supreme Court on November 11 had directed the Delhi police to form a “special cell to ensure effective implementation of the ban on firecrackers”. Over 45 days later, this special cell still hasn’t been formed.
East Delhi
For the district of East Delhi, additional deputy commissioner Vineet Kumar responded to our RTI saying 40 cases had been registered. Six each were in Nand Nagri, Kalyanpuri and Madhu Vihar, five each in Mandawali, Preet Vihar and Shakarpur, four in Jagatpuri and three in Ghazipur.
All these cases were registered under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita. Section 223(a) penalises individuals who deliberately disobey lawful orders issued by public servants. Conviction can lead to imprisonment of up to six months. And Section 223(b) says that anyone who disobeys an order from a public servant, causing trouble or obstruction to others, can be punished with imprisonment of up to six months, a fine of up to Rs 2,500 or both.
Newslaundry looked at 15 of these 40 FIRs. Only eight named the accused while the rest were against unidentified persons.
No FIRs were registered in Mayur Vihar, Laxmi Nagar or Pandav Nagar, where residents anecdotally alleged firecrackers had been burst at a large scale on Diwali.
“Even before Diwali, people here had started bursting crackers and it continued late into the night,” complained Pintu Shah, who lives in Pandav Nagar. “Boys in my building alone had bought firecrackers worth Rs 5,000 each. The police were patrolling the area but didn’t stop anyone. The boys weren’t even scared of the police watching them.”
Surendra Sharma, the station house officer of Laxmi Nagar, admitted that “incidents did occur” under his jurisdiction.
“We even seized firecrackers,” he said.
Then why weren’t FIRs registered? Could he provide us with the FIR numbers? The SHO said he has a “busy schedule” and cut the phone call.
In Preet Vihar, the five FIRs registered contained identical statements from the police, even though they were filed on different days, at different times, and by different police officers. One was filed on October 30, two on October 31, and two on November 1.
Curiously, the two FIRs on November 1 – FIR 336/24 and FIR 335.24 – were logged at exactly the same time, at 11.20 pm, even though they pertained to two separate areas where residents had telephoned the police to complain about violations of the firecracker ban.
In Shakarpur police station, five FIRs were registered for offences committed on Diwali day, October 31. The first FIR was registered that night and the other four the following day, all based on complaints from police officers.
The October 31 FIR at Shakarpur named one Vijay Kumar Bagga, a 58-year-old resident of D Block, as the accused. One of the FIRs registered on November 1 named one Rohil Khan, a firecracker vendor, as the accused.
The remaining three FIRs were filed by the same officer, Rinku Kumar, at 6.20 am, 6.30 am and 6.40 am respectively on November 1 for offences committed at different areas the previous night. They used identical wording: “Loud sounds of firecrackers were heard. Upon arrival, the police team noticed the offenders fleeing the scene. Their identities remain unknown. By setting off loud firecrackers, they caused noise and air pollution, violating the orders of the National Green Tribunal and the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding firecrackers, thereby committing an offense under U/S 223(a).”
In Mandawali police station, all five FIRs – two on October 31, three on November 1 – named specific people for violations. Their names are Mohammad Salman, Shoaib Chaudhary, Kamlesh Kumar, Ravinder Gautam, Dr Rajesh Prasad and Deepak Gupta.
A senior officer from Mandawali police station told Newslaundry that bound down statements were signed.
“Such cases don’t usually involve arrests. Instead, a ‘bound down’ bond is filled which requires the accused to appear in court when summoned,” he said. “This bond is typically used in minor offences such as cases involving small quantities of alcohol or drugs. After verifying details, the individual is released. In most of these cases, there is no significant punishment. They are often resolved in Lok Adalats with minor fines.”
The officer added, “This isn’t as serious as it’s being made out to be. The magistrate usually lets the accused go after imposing a fine of Rs 500-1,000.”
Rohini: ‘Firecrackers destroyed upon seeing police’
Fifty-three cases were registered in Rohini for violating the firecracker ban. Nine of them were in Aman Vihar, of which seven named people as accused.
Rohini DCP Amit Goyal said, “The cases are in court, and we will be filing a chargesheet soon...The case is bailable, so the accused were bound down. The accused were released but technically they will be taken into custody again.”
However, these seven FIRs said no firecrackers were seized, and despite being filed by different police officers, they used near-identical wording: “During patrolling we saw a person burning firecrackers outside their house. Upon seeing the police they lit the firecracker in their hand, causing it to burst and scatter. As a result, the firecracker could not be seized by the police.”
A senior officer of the Delhi police claimed there’s a “simple” reason for identical language.
“The police don’t have any seizures in these cases. Without a seizure, the case weakens and it becomes easier for the accused’s lawyer to defend their client,” he said. “The fact that this happened in seven out of nine cases shows it was intentional. It was not just a random occurrence.”
The court hearings
The Delhi government had notified a ban on firecrackers – manufacturing, sale, storage and bursting – on October 14 until January. This was “part of the government’s broader initiative to mitigate air pollution and protect public health”. In compliance with directives from the Supreme Court and NGT, the Delhi police deployed special teams to enforce the ban, warning that violations would lead to legal action under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita.
Last year, favourable weather conditions kept the AQI at 218, but this year, the national capital’s air quality plummeted after Diwali with unfavourable meteorological conditions, stubble burning and vehicular emissions. The firecracker ban was violated in many neighbourhoods across the city despite over 300 enforcement teams reportedly being deployed.
This month, the Delhi government told the Supreme Court – which was hearing petitions seeking directions to curb air pollution – that it had decided to impose a permanent ban. But it said that the ban would be effective only if similar measures are imposed by other NCR states such as Rajasthan, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. Rajasthan said it had already invoked such a ban on December 17, the court asked UP and Haryana to respond.
Newslaundry sent a questionnaire to police’s public relations officer Jagpreet Singh. This report will be updated if he responds.
This report was first published in Hindi. It was translated to English by Chandan Singh Rajput.
This piece is part of a collaborative campaign to tackle air pollution. Here’s how you can join the Fight To Breathe. Click here to power this campaign.
Newslaundry is a reader-supported, ad-free, independent news outlet based out of New Delhi. Support their journalism, here.
