Kamal Ghorui
The judge who probed Kerala’s deadliest fireworks tragedy says commercial interests, not religious sentiment, are keeping unsafe practices alive.
Former high court judge P S Gopinathan, who headed the judicial commission into the Puttingal fireworks tragedy, talks about how his report continues to gather dust, even as unsafe practices keep causing accidents, most recently in Thrissur. Excerpts:
There is often a strong argument that fireworks are an integral part of religious practice, especially at temple festivals. How do you view that claim?
I disagree entirely. Fireworks cannot be linked to faith in any manner. There is nothing divine about them, nor can they be considered an essential religious ritual. At best, they are a form of celebration that has grown customary over time.
If fireworks are not rooted in faith, what is driving their continued use despite repeated accidents and safety concerns?
When you examine the pattern closely, the economic interests become impossible to ignore. These displays have a clear commercial dimension— the scale at which they are organized and the resources involved all point to strong financial motives. In many cases, this commercial interest appears to be the primary driving factor.
What has been the govt’s response to your commission report on the Puttingal tragedy?
The government did accept the report, and an action taken report was prepared and tabled in the assembly. That is the formal position. But on the ground, there has been no meaningful or comprehensive implementation of the recommendations. Acceptance without execution defeats the very purpose of the report.
What should have been the immediate next step after the report was accepted?
The most critical step would have been formulating a clear standard operating procedure or a well-defined protocol based on the recommendations of the commission. This protocol should have covered every stage—from preparation to execution—and should have been made mandatory for all fireworks displays. Unfortunately, that has not been done.
Your report recommended a shift in the nature of fireworks displays. Could you elaborate?
One of the key recommendations was to move away from noise-intensive fireworks toward light- and colour-based displays.
The emphasis should be on visual spectacle rather than on sound. There are many safer and more advanced ways to create impressive displays without relying on hazardous explosive noise. This shift is both practical and necessary if we are serious about reducing risk.
You have also referred to international practices. What lessons should we draw from them?
At large-scale international events, including the Olympics, fireworks displays are executed with a high degree of planning, precision, and safety. These are far more sophisticated than what we currently do, yet they are managed without incident. There is no reason we cannot study those models and adopt comparable standards. Much of what we practise today is simply outdated and unsafe.
What is your view on the timing of fireworks displays, particularly those held late at night?
Clear restrictions are already in place and must be strictly enforced. Between 10pm and 6am, such noise disturbances should not be permitted—this applies not just to fireworks but to amplified sound systems as well. These rules exist to protect public health, and there should be no compromise in enforcing them.
Do you believe recent accidents are largely preventable?
Yes, they are preventable. When an incident like the one in Thrissur occurs, it is unlikely to be due to a single factor such as heat alone. There are usually serious lapses somewhere in the system—whether in handling, storage, compliance, or supervision. These are precisely the kinds of failures that a proper regulatory framework is meant to address.
Beyond human safety, what are the wider consequences of these displays?
The impact is far broader than is commonly acknowledged. These displays harm the environment, distress animals, and can damage both movable and immovable property. The noise levels are extreme, often physically harmful. Despite all of this, the practice continues with little regard for its consequences.
What were your key recommendations on administrative and regulatory mechanisms?
We recommended stricter licensing norms, mandatory use of only approved fireworks, and clearly defined safety distances between display areas, storage points, structures and spectators. We also called for CCTV coverage at multiple points to monitor compliance and detect violations, along with coordinated action by all relevant agencies. Specifically, the district disaster management authority should designate a nodal officer for every major festival to coordinate among the police, fire and rescue services, pollution control authorities, and local bodies.
In hindsight, what has been the cost of not implementing these recommendations?
When recommendations designed to prevent tragedies go unimplemented, the risks inevitably persist. Many of the incidents we have witnessed since then could have been avoided had a proper system been put in place. The lack of follow-through is a serious failure.
What is the larger message you would want policymakers and the public to take away?
We must move away from outdated, unsafe practices. Safer alternatives exist, and international standards are there to be adopted. Above all, this issue must be viewed through the lens of public safety and human lives — not tradition or sentiment.
