LANDMARK JUDGMENTS Landmark Judgment of Supreme Court of India
Country
Subject Environment Law
Statutes Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Case Title Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v K K R Majestic Colony Welfare Association
Citation Criminal Appeal No. 732 of 2000 Decided on 30th August, 2000
Judges Mr. M.B. Shah and Mr. S.N. Phukan, JJ.Relevent text of judgment
" 1. The questions involved in this appeal are that in a country having multiple religious and numerous communities or sects, whether a particular community or sect of that community can claim right to add to noise pollution on the ground of religion? Whether beating of drums or reciting of prayers by use of microphones and loudspeakers so as to disturb the peace or tranquillity of neighbourhood should be permitted? Undisputedly no religion prescribes that prayers should be performed by disturbing the peace of others nor does it preach that they should be through voice-amplifiers or beating of drums. In our view, in a civilized society in the name of religion, activities which disturb old or infirm persons, students or children having their sleep in the early hours or during day-time or other persons carrying on other activities cannot be permitted.
It should not be forgotten that young babies in the neighbourhood are also entitled to enjoy their natural right of sleeping in a peaceful atmosphere. A student preparing for his examination is entitled to concentrate on his studies without their being any unnecessary disturbance by the neighbours. Similarly, old and infirm are entitled to enjoy reasonable quietness during their leisure hours without there being any nuisance of noise pollution. Aged, sick, people afflicted with psychic disturbances as well as children up to 6 years of age are considered to be very sensitive to noise. Their rights are also required to be honoured.
Under the Environment (Protection) Act,, 1986, rules for noise pollution level are framed which prescribe permissible limits of noise in residential, commercial, industrial areas or silence zone. The question is - whether the appellant can be permitted to violate the said provisions and add to the noise pollution? In our view, to claim such a right itself would be unjustifiable. In these days,the problem of noise pollution has become more serious with the increasing trend towards industrialisation, urbanisation and modernization and is having many evil effects including danger to the health. It may cause interruption of sleep, affect communication, loss of efficiency, hearing loss or deafness, high blood pressure, depression, irritability, fatigue, gastro-intestinal problems, allergy, distraction, mental stress and annoyance etc. This also affects animals alike. The extent of damage depends upon the duration and the intensity of noise. Sometimes it leads to serious law and order problem. Further, in an organised society, rights are related with duties towards others including neighbours. In our view, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant deserves to be rejected because the direction given by the learned Judge to the authorities is only to follow the guidelines laid down in Appa Raos case decided by the Division Bench of the same High Court on the basis of the Madras City Police Act, 1888 and the Madras Towns Nuisance Act, 1889. It is also in conformity with the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 framed by the Central Government under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. Rule 3 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 provides for ambient air quality standards is respect of noise for different areas/zones as specified in the Schedule annexed to the rule which is as under:
"Ambient Air Quality Standards in respect of Noise"
Area Code Category of Area Limits in DB(a) Leq.
Zone Day Time Night Time(A) Industrial Area 75 70
(B) Commercial Area 65 55
(C) Residential Area 55 45
(D) Silence Zone 50 40Note: (1) Day time shall mean from 6.00 a.m. to 10.00 p.m.
(2) Night time shall mean from 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 am.
(3) Silence zone is defined as an area comprising not less than 100 metres around hospitals, educational institutions and courts. The silence zones are zones which are declared as such by the competent authority. [religious places were added to the rules as amended in November 2000 after parliamentary discussion]
(4) Mixed categories of areas may be declared as one of the four above-mentioned categories by the competent authority.Other relevant rules for controlling noise pollution are:
4. "Responsibility as to enforcement of noise pollution control measures: - (1) The noise levels in any area/zone shall not exceed the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise as specified in the Schedule. (2) The authority shall be responsible for the enforcement of noise pollution control measures and the due compliance of the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise.
5. Restriction on the use of loudspeakers/public address system:- (1) A loud speaker or a public address system shall not used except after obtaining written permission from the authority. (2) A Loud speaker or a public address system shall not be used at night (between 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. except in closed premises for communication, e.g. auditorium, conference rooms, community halls and banquet halls.
6. Consequences of any violation in silence zone/area:- Whoever, in any place covered under the silence zone/area commits any of the following offence, he shall be liable for penalty under the provisions of the Act: (i) whoever, plays any music or uses any sound amplifiers. (ii) whoever, beats a drum or tom-tom or blows a horn either musical or pressure, or trumpet of beats or sounds any instrument, or (iii) whoever, exhibits any mimetic, musical or other performances of a nature of attract crowds.
7. Complaints to be made to the authority: (1) A person may, if the noise level exceeds the ambient noise standards by 10 dB(A) or more given in the corresponding columns against any area/zone, make a complaint to the authority. (2) The authority shall act on the complainant and take action against the violator in accordance with the provisions of these rules and any other law in force.
8. Power to prohibit etc. continuance of music sound or noise:-
(I) If the authority is satisfied from the report of an officer incharge of a police station or other information received by him that it is necessary to do so in other to prevent annoyance, disturbance, discomfort or injury or risk of annoyance, disturbance, discomfort or injury to the public or to any person who dwell or occupy property on the vicinity, he may, by a written order issue such directions as he may consider necessary to any person for preventing, prohibiting, controlling or regulating: (a) the incidence or continuance in or upon any premises of (i) any vocal or instrumental music, (ii) sounds caused by playing, beating, clashing, blowing or use in any manner whatsoever of any instrument including loudspeakers, public address systems, appliance or apparatus or contrivance which is capable of producing or re-producing sound, or (b) the carrying or in or upon, any premises of any trade, avocation or operation or process resulting in or attached with noise.
(2) The Authority empowered under sub-rule (1) may, either on its own motion, or on the application of any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-rule (1) either rescind, modify or alter any such order: Provided that before any such application is disposed of the said authority shall afford to the applicant an opportunity of appearing before it either in person or by a person representing him and showing cause against the order and shall, if it rejects any such application either wholly or in part, record its reasons for such rejection". Aforesaid rules are unambiguous, clear and speak for themselves.Considering the same, it cannot be said that the directions issued by the High Court are in any manner illegal or erroneous. In the present case, the contention with regard to the rights under Article 5 or Article 26 of the Constitution which are subject to "public order, morality and health" are not required to be dealt with in detail mainly because as stated earlier no religion prescribes or preaches that prayers are required to be performed through voice amplifiers or by beating of drums. In any case, if there is such practice, it should not adversely affect the rights of others including that of being not disturbed in their activities. We would only refer to some observations made by the Constitution Bench of this Court qa rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution in Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Maharaj and Others vs. The State of Guajarat & Others [(1975) 1 SCC 11]. After considering the various contentions, the Court observed that "no rights in an organised society can be absolute. Enjoyment of ones rights must be consistent with the enjoyment of rights also by others. Where in a free play of social forces it is not possible to bring about a voluntary harmony, the State has to step in to set right the imbalance between competing interests". The Court also observed that "a particular fundamental right cannot exist in isolation in a water-tight compartment. One Fundamental Right of a person may have to co-exist in harmony with the exercise of another Fundamental Right by others also with reasonable and valid exercise of power by the State in the light of the Directive Principles in the interests of social welfare as a whole". Further, it is to be stated that because of urbanisation or industrialisation the noise pollution may in some area of a city/town might be exceeding permissible limits prescribed under the rules, but that would not be a ground for permitting others to increase the same by beating of drums of by use of voice amplifiers, loudspeakers or by such other musical instruments and, therefore, rules prescribing reasonable restrictions including the rules for the use of loudspeakers and voice amplifiers framed under the Madras Town Nuisance Act, 1889 and also the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 are required to be enforced. We would mention that even though the Rules are unambiguous, there is lack of awareness among the citizens as well as the Implementation Authorities about the Rules or its duty to implement the same. Noise polluting activities which are rampant and yet for one reason or the other, the aforesaid Rules or the rules framed under various State Police Acts are not enforced. Hence, the High Court has rightly directed implementation of the same."