#SupremeCourt resumes hearing petitions seeking the regulation of firecrackers and ban on the manufacture of firecrackers containing harmful chemicals such as barium nitrate #firecrackers
Justice MR Shah peruses the earlier orders passed in the case.
Justice Shah: we have recieved the prelimiary enquiry by CBI , in many items Barium has been found. Why should not your licenses be cancelled ? (to Hindustan firecrackers, etc)

Sr Adv Kiran Suri : we don't know what is there in the report
Justice Shah: the report is from concerned government laboratories. should we ask CBI to register FIR against you? tell us on the next date why should not you be punished?
Suri: Kindly give us the report...I don't know what is CBI enquiry

Justice Shah: its a preliminary report, how can that be given to you
Justice Shah: it shows earlier some licenses were killed

Senior Adv Gopal Sankaranarayanan: Those were dealer licenses and not manufacturer license
ASG Aishwarya Bhati: This report will clarify violations under explosives act where action can be taken under PESO, and it can be given since it is submitted to you. So we have no apprehension that the report can be given to the manufacturers.
Sr Adv Atmaram Nadkarni: here in this enquiry, it is more in the nature of a report by an advocate commissioner, a copy maybe given to contemnors my lord..
Justice Shah: the enquiry papers must be with you Ms Bhati?

ASG: Yes, My Lords
Justice Shah to other counsels: The report submitted by CBI on preliminary enquiry on the basis of laboratory is very serious in nature. Sivakasi itself has done it as per the report, main manufacturer is there. action has to be taken now.
Justice Shah: Hindustan and standard fireworks everywhere it has happened. Barium was purchased in large quantity by the. when barium is banned how can this be purchased?
Nadkarni: a petition has so many issues but only Sivakasi is being targeted.

Justice Shah: under what law is Supreme Court order being violated

Nadkarni: it was the trial through standard worksand it was asked to be done by NEERI
Justice Shah: if anybody has violated the orders strict view will be taken including cancellation of licenses
Justice MR Shah: This application has been preferred by original writ petitioners with a grievance with respect to violation of the orders by this court in earlier writ petition of 2015.
Justice MR Shah: it cannot be disputed that pursuant to earlier orders passed by this court, barium and barium salts are being used in the manufacture of firecrackers. it is alleged that manufacturers have violated the previous orders by this court
Justice Shah: it has been contended that barium salts were used in the manufacturers.

Sr Adv Suri: in 2019 the order was modified and some barium was permitted

Justice Shah: yes we will give you opportunity to argue before sending you to jail !
Justice Shah: this court by order dated 3.3.2020 directed the CNI Chennai to make a detailed probe regarding alleged violations of this courts orders by the respondent manufacturers by using the ingredients which have been banned & misleading courts
Justice Shah: Joint Director CBI was directed to submit this report to this court within 6 weeks. The inquiry report states that samples of firecrackers and raw material was collected from manufacturing factories which was sent for chemical analysis.
Justice Shah: it has been found that in many firecrackers manufactured by manufacturers named in earlier orders, barium salts was found. A huge quantity of barium salts was also purchased by manufacturer after the substance was banned.
Justice Shah: some of the manufacturers did not adhere to the chemical composition therefore violated the orders passed by this court and also violated orders regarding labelling of fire crackers
Justice Shah: as per orders passed by court on 3.3.2020, standard fireworks, Hindustan fireworks, vinayaka fireworks, and others were directed to showcase why they should not be punished for contempt for violating this courts orders.
Justice Shah: after considering the report by CBI Chennai prima facie it appears manufacturers have violated the orders of this court with regard to use of barium and barium salts and orders regarding labeling of firecrackers
Justice Shah: we direct the counsel of CBI to furnish enquiry report to the respective counsel of manufacturers by tomorrow. copy of the report be also furnished to Sr Adv Gopal Sankarnarayanan
Sr Adv Gopal Sankaranarayanan: if names of people who gave testimonies etc are there then it needs to be redacted

ASG: This is not based on oral testimony but reports by the laboratories.
Justice Shah: it will be open to concerned manufacturers against whom allegations are made to file the counter with a copy to ASG Bhati as well as Sr Adv Gopal Sankarnarayanan

Sr Adv Suri: we will file a comprehensive affidavit
Justice Shah: registry is directed to issue formal notices to two IAs. it is stated that in the aforesaid IAs respective parties are represented through counsels. List the matter on October 6, 2021.
#supremecourt #firecrackers
ASG: One aspect is violations and one is the way forward. After a lot fo research these reports are prepared. Now there is question on mechanism to develop so that these orders are implemented?
Justice Shah: why is the MoEF so anxious? Today if we say green crackers only banners will be there and only barium will be used. this is not a fresh matter before us we have to consider earlier orders. you know the problems only those suffering from asthma can feel this
Justice Shah: we have to taken a balanced view looking at the country because everyday there is a celebration. But we have to see other factors also and we cannot allow them to suffer and die

ASG: My own child is suffering from asthma..its not like we are falling from the sky
Justice Shah: we are talking about us also. we also want to see how festivals are celebrated..

ASG: I apologize if we are coming across as anxious.. I will keep quiet now unless asked to speak now.
Justice Shah: let us hear the case on Oct 6. we have also come to know that even stumbling burning contributes to it.

Ms Bhati we are sorry if we hurt you

ASG: no no I am sorry. There was some bashing in another court also
Justice Shah: i have been there and also a CBI counsel. I was at the receiving end also. such bashings happen and this trains us
#supremecourt

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Bar & Bench

Bar & Bench Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @barandbench

30 Sep
Delhi High Court has taken suo motu cognizance of security measures to be implemented in courts in the wake of the Rohini Court firing incident.

#DelhiHighCourt #RohiniCourtFiring Image
Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh begins hearing matter

#DelhiHighCourt #RohiniCourtFiring
CJ Patel: I am issuing notice today. I want suggestions from all respondents in short bullet points. For checking at courts, everybody is in a hurry, so how do we work around that?

#DelhiHighCourt #RohiniCourtFiring
Read 8 tweets
30 Sep
CJI NV Ramana led 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court to hear the curative petition against its 3-judge verdict of 2019 which upheld Adani Power's termination of the Power Purchase Agreement with Gujarat Urja Vikas Ltd(GUVL) #SupremeCourt Image
On Sept 17, #SupremeCourt issued notice in GUVL's curative petition against the 2019 verdict favoring #Adani Power

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…
Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi: Apologies My Lord we didn't see the bench had assembled

Sr Adv Aryama Sundaram states he appears for petitioners

Sr Adv Harish Salve appear for respondents
Read 7 tweets
30 Sep
#SupremeCourt to continue hearing plea by Attorney General K K Venugopal against the Bombay HC judgement which held that sexual assault offences under the #POCSO would not be attracted if there was no direct 'skin to skin' contact between the accused and the child #SkinToSkin Image
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra argues.

#SupremeCourt #POCSOAct
Sr. Adv. Luthra takes the #SupremeCourt through relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, reads out Section 349:

A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes...
Read 70 tweets
30 Sep
#SupremeCourt to shortly hear plea by a Noida resident against inconvenience caused to commuters between Noida and Delhi due to blockage of roads by protesters against Farm Laws #FarmersProtest Image
Justice SK Kaul: Mr Nataraj (ASG) what are you doing ?

ASG: We convened a meeting.

SC: we laid down a law and how to implement the law is your business. The court has no means to implement it
SG: It is the duty of executive to implement it

SC: if we encroached then you will say we trespassed into executive domain. This has ramifications.. there are grievances which can be addressed. But this cannot be a perpetual problem.
Read 7 tweets
29 Sep
#SupremeCourt to continue hearing plea by Attorney General KK Venugopal against the Bombay High Court decision stating that 'skin to skin' contact was necessary for offence of 'sexual assault' under POCSO Act.

#POCSOAct
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra: Out of the four Petitions, before the Court, I appear for the Legal Services Authority. I have also brought on record the trial court records.

#POCSOAct #SupremeCourt
Attorney General KK Venugopal: According to me, the Court has misinterpreted Section 7 of the #POCSOAct.

Question arises that if the child is wearing a blouse, and you press the breast, will it prevent an offence under Section 8?

#POCSOAct #SupremeCourt
Read 45 tweets
29 Sep
Petitioner Srivari Dadaa tells CJI NV Ramana led bench: Please listen to facts of case with patience

CJI NV Ramana: if you are a Balaji devotee then you must be patient. everyday you cannot threaten registry to list the petition. This is not done. we are all devotees of balaji
CJI: Can we interfere in puja and how it has to be conducted. this is not Kachherhri court that you can say whatever you want

Dadaa: its about fundamental right

CJI: How to conduct pooja is a fundamental rights?
CJI to respondent: It is said that there are certain irregularities in conducting pooja. We are all devotees of puja and we all expect that the Devasthanam will take care of traditions and perform all ritual and customs. what happened to the petitioners representation then?
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(