Crackers and the judiciary

I rarely write on judicial orders, but N is tired of me ranting to her, so am indulging myself on the web.

The supreme court in its wisdom has decided to ban the sale of firecrackers in Delhi due to the (quite justifiable) fear that the pollution caused will result in health issues. Given Delhi’s quite abominable air quality, the fact that adding a bunch of Sulphur di-oxide is going to be quite deleterious is indisputable.

What is disputable however, is the fact that while sale is now illegal, it is less certain that actually bursting fire crackers is illegal. I am almost certain that it is not illegal in most of the rest of the country. And by making sale of firecrackers (otherwise legal in most of India) is the court not infringing on the rights of all those otherwise upstanding businessman to conduct their trade?

Now, I have no skin in this game. I neither live in Delhi, nor am involved in the cracker supply chain in any form or fashion; being an LED diya person. But the trend of judicial activism into areas which traditionally belonged to government and legislative action is something that is increasingly visible in India. It may have had benign intentions and may have been widely lauded, as when the court ruled that buses in Delhi should only run on CNG and not diesel. But this has emboldened the courts to bravely venture forth where no judge has gone before.

From crackers to alcohol shops, from coal licences to telecom spectrum, the reach of the legislature has shrunk, with the judicial arm of the state taking its place. We may not like our politicians, and we may disagree strongly with their actions. But I think its worth asking if the courts taking their place is a good solution.