Judgments

IN RE : NOISE POLLUTION  – IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAWS FOR RESTRUCTURING USE OF LOUDSPEAKERS AND HIGH VOLUME PRODUCING SOUND SYSTEMS (CASE SUMMARY)

The Supreme Court in In Re : Noise Pollution  (2005) Supp. (1) SCR 624  held that compulsorily exposing unwilling persons to hear a noise raised to unpleasant or obnoxious levels is  in violation of  the right of others to a peaceful, comfortable and pollution free life guaranteed by Article 21.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Supreme Court heard two Writ Petitions in this matter. In first Petition, Sh. Anil K Mittal, an engineer by profession moved the Court pro bono publico. A 13 year girl was victim of rape and her cries could not be heard due to sound of loudspeaker. Later she set herself ablaze and died. The Petitioner claimed that loudspeakers are being used without any restriction in religious performances, bhajans and marriage ceremonies.

In the second petition, amendment dated 11.10. 2002  to Noise Pollution Control and Regulations Rules, 1999 was challenged.  The amendment empowered the State Government to permit use of loudspeaker or public address system during night hours (between 10 P.M. to 12 P.M ) mid-night on or during the cultural or religious occasions for a limited period not exceeding 15 days.

FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court observed that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees life and personal liberty to all persons. Right to life enshrined in Article 21 is not of mere survival or existence. It guarantees a right of person to life with human dignity. Therein are included all the aspects of life which go on to make a person’s life meaningful, complete and worth living. The human life has its charm and there is no reason why the life should not be enjoyed along with all permissible pleasures. Anyone who wishes to live in peace, comfort and quiet within his house has a right to prevent the noise as pollutant reaching him. No one can claim a right to create noise even in his own premises which would travel beyond his precincts and cause nuisance to neighbors or others. Any noise which has the effect of materially interfering with the ordinary comforts of life judged by the standard of a reasonable man is nuisance. How and when a nuisance created by noise becomes actionable has to be answered by reference to its degree and the surrounding circumstances including the place and the time.

The Supreme Court observed that those who make noise often take shelter  behind Article 19 (1) (a) pleading freedom of speech and expression. Undoubtedly, the freedom of speech and right to expression are fundamental rights but the rights are not absolute. Nobody can claim a fundamental right to create noise by amplifying the sound of his speech with the help of loudspeakers. While one has a right to speech, others have a right to listen or decline to listen. Nobody can be compelled to listen and nobody can claim that he has a right to make his voice trespass into ears or mind of others. Nobody can indulge into aural aggression. If anyone increases his volume of speech and that too with the assistance of artificial devices so as to compulsorily expose unwilling persons to hear a noise raised to unpleasant or obnoxious levels then the person speaking is violating the right of others to a peaceful, comfortable and pollution free life guaranteed by . Article 19 (1) (a) cannot be pressed into service for defeating the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21.

After analyzing the word noise, the Supreme Court observed that the disturbance produced in our environment produced in our environment by the undesirable sound of various kind is called “noise pollution”. Noise can disturb our work, rest, sleep and communication. It can damage our hearing and evoke other psychological and possibly pathological reactions.

The Supreme Court noted that sources of noise are road traffic, aircraft, railroads, construction, industry, noise in buildings and consumer products. Bursting of firecrackers is also a health hazard since it is responsible for both air pollution as well as noise pollution.

The Supreme Court observed that in India laws have been enacted for prevention of noise pollution,  but the major issue lies in implementation of these laws. The Government has enacted Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.  Noise pollution can be dealt under Section 268, 290 and 291 of the Indian Penal Code. Under Section 133 of Cr.P.C the magistrate has power to deal with nuisance. Certain provisions of Motor Vehicles Act also provide for reduction of noise. Noise has been included as pollutant under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act.

The Supreme Court held that by restricting the time of bursting the firecrackers does not in any way violate the religious rights of any person as enshrined under Article 25 of the Constitution. The festival of Diwali is mainly associated with pooja performed on the auspicious day and not with firecrackers. In no religious text book it is written that Diwali has to be celebrated by bursting crackers.

The Supreme Court issued several directions including – (i) firecrackers have to evaluated on the basis of chemical composition. Firecrackers can be divided in sound emitting and light emitting. There will be complete ban on sound emitting fire crackers between 10 PM and 6 AM. Chemical contents of firecrackers should be displayed on the box.  (ii) Noise level at the boundary of the public place shall not exceed 10 dB(A) above of ambient noise standard for the area or 75 dB (A) whichever is lower. No one will beat drum or use sound amplifier at night between 10PM to 6 AM except in public emergencies. (iii) No horn can be used during 10 PM to  6 AM in residential area. (iv) general awareness should be created towards hazardous effects of noise pollution.

____________________________________________________

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate based at Delhi. He has rich experience in civil, criminal, commercial, arbitration and corporate insolvency matters. He regularly appears before District Courts, NCLT, NCLAT, High Court and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *