Delhi’s three-day, court-permitted firecracker sale ended on Friday, but unlicensed vendors reportedly continued selling fireworks late into the night in several busy market areas, exposing a gap between formal licensing rules and on-ground enforcement.
According to a report by Jagran, authorised shops followed the prescribed sale period and closed after the deadline set under the Supreme Court’s special permission. The final day drew heavy crowds, particularly around Paiwalan near Jama Masjid, as buyers arrived to purchase fireworks before the permitted window ended.
The report said authorised shops across Delhi saw substantial activity during the final day of sales. Paiwalan remained one of the busiest locations, with buyers continuing to arrive until midnight. The sale period had been limited to three days under the court’s directions, which specified the dates and conditions governing the purchase and sale of firecrackers.
At the same time, more than 50 street vendors were reportedly selling firecrackers without licences in and around Paiwalan. Jagran also reported similar activity near authorised shops and in Sadar Bazaar, Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk and Karol Bagh. The account said no responsible administrative team was visibly present in the area to stop or question the sellers.
The reported activity raises a compliance concern beyond the expiry of the sale deadline. Firecrackers sold through unlicensed outlets were not subject to the same apparent checks as those sold by authorised traders. The report said it was unclear whether the products being sold were genuine green crackers or items prohibited under environmental restrictions.
The distinction is important because the regulatory framework for firecrackers depends not only on when they are sold, but also on what products are placed on the market and how they are handled. Unlicensed sales can make it more difficult for enforcement agencies to establish the source, composition and storage conditions of the fireworks.
Licensed traders reportedly expressed anger and disappointment over what they described as unequal enforcement. They said their establishments were required to shut once the permitted period ended, while unlicensed sellers continued operating openly in different parts of the city. Their complaint points to a recurring administrative challenge: rules are easier to apply to registered businesses than to dispersed street-level sellers operating outside the formal system.
The report did not identify any specific enforcement action against the alleged illegal vendors or state whether authorities seized stock, registered cases or issued penalties after the deadline. The immediate next steps therefore remain with the relevant administrative and enforcement agencies, which will have to determine whether the reported sales breached the court’s directions and applicable licensing and environmental rules.
