Delhi after Diwali: AQI nears 1000 mark in many areas as people burst firecrackers on massive scale

In many areas, including R K Puram, Sriniwaspuri, Jawahar Lal Nehru stadium, the air quality reached the 999 mark, which is an alarming situation.

Image: ANI

New Delhi: The morning after Diwali night, Delhi woke up to a haze-engulfed city and a ‘very poor’ air quality. The overall Air Quality Index (AQI) was recorded at 302 at 11 pm on Wednesday, which fell in the very poor category, according to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). People burst firecrackers on a large scale and till late night, flouting the Supreme Court’s order of bursting crackers between 8 pm to 10 pm time-frame in many areas. In many areas, including R K Puram, Sriniwaspuri, Jawahar Lal Nehru stadium, the air quality reached the 999 mark, which is an alarming situation. Breathing this air is equal to smoke from 45 cigarettes entering our system. Also the AQI meter cannot measure air quality beyond 999. Areas like Anand Vihar, ITO and Jahangirpuri also recorded very high pollution levels. On the night of Diwali, the Air Quality Index deteriorated rapidly with every passing hour in the national capital. The AQI was 281 at 7 pm. It rose to 291 at 8 pm and further deteriorated to 294 at 9 pm, 296 at 10 pm. As per the Centre-run System of Air Quality Forecasting and Research (SAFAR) recorded the overall AQI at 319, which falls in the "very poor" category. The situation was equally bad in the neighbouring areas of Delhi such as Gurugram, Noida and Ghaziabad, where crackers were burst as usual, raising question marks on the efficacy of the administration in enforcing the apex court's ban. The Supreme Court had allowed bursting of firecrackers from 8 pm to 10 pm only on Diwali and other festivals. It allowed manufacture and sale of only "green crackers", and asked had asked the police to ensure that banned firecrackers were not sold. It had said that in case of any violation, the station house officer (SHO) of the police station concerned would be held personally liable and it would amount to committing contempt of the court. WATCH: