Bombay High Court asks BMC to re-upload Dia Mirza firecracker-free Deepavali video

The Bombay High Court asked the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation to re-upload actor Dia Mirza's firecracker-free Deepavali video, saying it was deeply pained by the controversy. The court described the objections as a petty mindset and noted the campaign's aim of cutting air and noise pollution.

The Bombay High Court has asked the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation to re-upload a video in which actor Dia Mirza urged people to celebrate Deepavali without firecrackers. The Bench said it was deeply pained by the controversy that led to the video being taken down. The observation signals that the court sees the matter as one of public interest rather than a dispute about a single social media post.

The video was part of a civic campaign aimed at reducing air and noise pollution during the festival season. Mumbai, like many large Indian cities, sees a sharp deterioration in air quality around Deepavali, and noise levels often exceed permitted limits. Municipal authorities have in recent years run awareness drives encouraging residents to choose quieter and less polluting forms of celebration.

The controversy arose after the video drew criticism from some quarters, which argued that such messaging targeted a particular community's festival. The video was subsequently removed from the corporation's channels. Those who objected said that environmental appeals should be applied evenly across festivals and occasions, and that the choice of messenger and timing was insensitive.

During the hearing, the court described the objections as reflecting a petty mindset. The observation was strongly worded, but it was accompanied by an acknowledgement of the purpose behind the campaign. The Bench emphasised that the message was about public health and the environment, and that a call to avoid firecrackers should not be read as an attack on faith or tradition.

The courts have a long record on the subject. The Supreme Court has previously restricted the sale and use of certain types of firecrackers, directed time limits for bursting them, and encouraged the use of so-called green crackers with lower emissions. Several High Courts have issued similar directions, and enforcement has varied from city to city and year to year.

Supporters of the campaign point out that the health costs of festival pollution fall heavily on children, older people and those with respiratory conditions. Hospitals in several cities report an increase in patients with breathing difficulties in the days after Deepavali. They argue that a civic body has both the right and the duty to communicate these risks to residents in a clear and public way.

Critics of restrictions say that bans and appeals can be applied unevenly, and that other sources of pollution, such as construction dust, vehicular emissions and industrial activity, contribute far more over the year. They also argue that cultural practices should be dealt with through dialogue rather than perceived pressure. Those concerns, while debated, do not by themselves answer the question of whether a civic awareness video should have been withdrawn.

The court's request to restore the video is a modest step, yet it carries weight in the continuing conversation about how public institutions can speak about environmental responsibility without causing offence. Much will now depend on how the corporation responds and whether it chooses to continue the campaign in future seasons. For residents, the practical question remains the same, which is whether the city can reduce the smoke and noise that accompany its biggest festival. Measured readings of air quality and noise in the days after Deepavali will, over the next few years, show whether awareness campaigns of this kind change behaviour in any lasting way.