Even as firecracker market have already come under the scanner for flouting various norms, including a no-objection certificate from the fire department, yet another norm which can be seen openly violated is a Supreme Court order which says all firecrackers on sale must specify the composition and maximum permissible weight of every chemical used in manufacturing firecrackers.
According to a Supreme Court order passed on July 18, 2005, the department of explosives (DoE) must specify the composition or proportion as well as the maximum permissible weight of every chemical used in manufacturing firecrackers. The firecracker boxes must contain these details.
Notably, according to Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation's (PESO) notification to firecracker manufacturers, no firecracker with noise level exceeding 125dB (AI) or 145dB (C) four metres from the point of bursting is allowed in market.
The reality, however, is quite different.
A visit to the grain market near the Jalandhar bypass lays bare the poor execution of these orders. Neither all boxes carry this mandatory information nor most dealers know about the norms. Many firecracker boxes did not even contain the much-needed warning that "this firecracker must be burst in open".
The market is flooded with such crackers and the officials concerned are paying no heed.
When asked, a dealer from Field Gunj, who has been in the business for over a decade, said he was unaware of any such ruling. "We have not come across any such order. No customer has even complained about this," he said.
"When did this order pass?" he added.
Another dealer who has a shop in the old city said the details were not necessary as no customer looked at those. "That information is of no use to the general public," he reasoned. A customer, out to buy crackers for his son, too offered ignorance when asked about the order.
According to the law, it is the police's duty to see that a firecracker vendor licensed by them do not sell any unauthorised explosive device.
When asked, DCP S Bhupati said he was on leave and a subordinate would be in a better position to respond.