Bengaluru’s air pollution increased by 37% during Diwali in 2026 compared with the previous year, while average noise pollution rose sharply, according to a report by Prajavani. The figures point to a reversal of the improvement recorded in 2025, when rain and lower firecracker use had helped reduce pollution levels across the city.
The report states that Bengaluru recorded an average Air Quality Index (AQI) of 114.33 over three days during this year’s Diwali period. However, the same report lists AQI readings of 102 on November 8, 144 on November 9 and 133 on November 10. Those three readings average 126.33, creating a numerical discrepancy that requires verification against the underlying Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) data.
The available figures nevertheless show a clear rise from the pre-festival level. Bengaluru recorded an AQI of 53 on November 7, the day before Diwali. The reading increased to 102 on November 8, reached 144 on November 9 and stood at 133 on November 10. The report says smoke spread across multiple parts of the city during the festival period.
The highest reported AQI was 228 around Majestic railway station. Other high readings included 188 at Kadubeesanahalli on the Outer Ring Road, 186 in Koramangala and Richmond Town, 181 around Electronic City, Neeladri Nagar and Silk Board, and 182 in Whitefield and Kundalahalli. High pollution was also reported near the western gate of Lalbagh and in areas around Jayanagar.
The geographic spread is significant because the locations listed in the report represent different urban conditions. Majestic is a dense transport and commercial hub, while Kadubeesanahalli, Electronic City, Whitefield and Kundalahalli are major employment and residential corridors. Koramangala, Richmond Town, Jayanagar and Lalbagh combine dense housing, commercial activity and heavily used roads. The figures therefore indicate that the festival-related pollution was not confined to one neighbourhood or one type of urban environment.
The year-on-year comparison is also notable. Prajavani reports that air pollution during Diwali in 2025 was 44% lower than in 2024. It also states that pollution in 2025 was 30.34% lower than during Diwali in 2020 and the preceding year, when the city was affected by the Covid-19 period. The supplied report does not identify the precise monitoring stations, averaging method or pollutant concentrations used for these comparisons, so the trend requires examination alongside official monitoring records.
Noise pollution increased even more sharply. The report puts the average festival-period noise level at 122 decibels in 2026, compared with 74 decibels in 2025, a reported increase of 62%. It also identifies 50 decibels as the applicable standard limit. The difference between the reported average and the stated limit indicates that festival noise substantially exceeded the benchmark cited in the report.
The locations identified for high noise levels include Ramamurthy Nagar, Koramangala, Yelahanka, HSR Layout, Indiranagar, Jayanagar, the RVCE–Mysuru Road area, BTM Layout and Domlur. These areas include residential neighbourhoods, arterial roads, educational and employment zones, and mixed-use districts. The distribution suggests that enforcement of time restrictions and control over firecracker use is an urban governance issue spanning multiple jurisdictions and land-use types.
Karnataka Forest and Environment Minister Ramalinga Reddy attributed the increase to lower rainfall and higher firecracker use compared with the previous year. He said Bengaluru had received heavy rain during Diwali in 2025 and that fewer people had burst firecrackers, contributing to lower pollution levels. According to the report, the minister said people had been permitted to burst green crackers only between 8 pm and 10 pm, but that the restriction was not followed widely.
The minister also called for greater public awareness about the environmental effects of firecrackers. His statement places responsibility on both compliance and citizen behaviour, but the supplied report does not provide details of the number of enforcement actions, seizures, fines or prosecutions recorded during the festival period. It also does not establish how many of the fireworks used were certified as green crackers.
The role of the KSPCB is central because the board is responsible for monitoring and reporting air and noise quality. Prajavani reports that its journalists contacted KSPCB Member Secretary Gokul, senior officials, regional officials and officers in the air and noise quality division, but were not given a consolidated report for Diwali or the days preceding it.
Officials reportedly said that no report had yet been prepared and that online information could be used instead. The report also quotes an unnamed official as saying that the data and reports were ready but that senior officers had instructed staff not to share them. The identity of that official and the documentary basis for the claim are not provided in the supplied material.
This creates a second institutional issue alongside the pollution itself: the accessibility and timeliness of environmental data. Festival pollution is short-lived, but its effects are concentrated over a period when exposure can be high. Without station-wise readings, pollutant breakdowns, monitoring periods and quality-control details, residents cannot easily assess the severity of conditions in their neighbourhoods or compare official claims with what is available online.
The report’s figures also show why citywide averages can conceal local exposure. An average AQI for Bengaluru does not describe the conditions around a major railway station, a high-density commercial district or a residential area near a busy arterial road. The reported reading of 228 at Majestic was substantially higher than the city-level figures cited elsewhere in the article. A public dashboard that publishes station-level data in a consistent format would make these differences more visible.
The same principle applies to noise. A citywide average of 122 decibels, if confirmed, would not indicate whether the exposure was continuous, concentrated in short bursts or measured at fixed monitoring points. Noise data needs time-stamped readings, station locations, measurement methods and the relevant land-use category to be interpreted properly. Those details are not included in the supplied report.
The 2026 episode therefore raises three linked questions for Bengaluru’s environmental governance. The first is whether restrictions on the timing and type of firecracker use were enforced consistently. The second is whether weather conditions, particularly rainfall and wind, were incorporated into public warnings and monitoring plans. The third is whether pollution data is released quickly enough for residents, researchers and local authorities to respond while the event is still occurring.
The available evidence supports reporting a sharp deterioration from 2025, with high readings reported in several parts of Bengaluru and a significant increase in festival noise. It does not yet establish a fully verified citywide average because of the discrepancy between the stated 114.33 AQI average and the individual readings listed in the report. It also does not provide a complete account of enforcement or the official KSPCB dataset.
The immediate next step is verification of the station-wise air and noise readings, the averaging periods, the comparison methodology and the official enforcement record. Until those records are released or independently checked, the reported increase should be treated as a serious but not fully verified account of Bengaluru’s Diwali pollution burden.
