31 December 2003
By Email & Post
To
Hon'ble Justice V N Khare
Chief Justice of India
Supreme Court of India
New DelhiSubject: Bombay High Court Building's 125 years completion celebrations on 10 January 2004
Dear Hon'ble Chief Justice Khare,
In a review petition filed by Government of Maharashtra in the Bombay High Court in connection with Noise Rules specifically related to silence zone, there was a hearing on 19 December 2003 in the Court of Hon'ble Chief Justice Thakker and Justice Oka. The Advocate General, while pleading on behalf of the petitioner GoM, mentioned in the passing that Bar Association had organised a function on the lawns of the Bombay High Court to celebrate 125 years of the Bombay High Court building on 10 January 2004. This was also reported in the press. I understand that your Hon'ble self would be the chief guest at the function.
In accordance with the Noise Rule 2000, silence zone is defined as "area comprising not less than hundred meters around hospitals, educational institutions, courts, religious places or any other area which is declared as such by the competent authority." The rule puts total ban on use of loud speakers in the silence zone.
In the said review petition, the petitioner has tried to interpret the rules in such a way that it would grant exemption by law certain institutions, such as religious places, educational institutions, open air cultural events etc., from the ban.
To me it appeared that by getting exemption to the proposed celebrations on the lawns of the High Court on 10 January 2004 by above attempt to interpret the rule, the AG was trying to achieve exemption for the religious places, educational institutions and the open air cultural events.
The intent of this mail is not to discuss the rule, the PIL petition is meant to do that. I am writing this specifically to bring to your knowledge my apprehensions of the consequences of holding the celebrations on the lawns of the High Court with loudspeakers. Or on the other hand by holding it without loudspeakers or holding it in enclosed hall of the High Court or even in the adjoining University of Bombay Convocation Hall.
By following the latter alternative, the court and the legal profession would be seen as (1) an institution that respects the prevailing law and does not indulge in interpreting it to suit its own ends, thereby prevent others from doing the same. (2) The letter and spirit of the rule is held sacred by the legal profession and that is clear cut direction to the law enforcing agency in the state of Maharashtra looking for excuses to not enforce the law, to enforce the same. I quote Justice M B Shah & Phukan "... 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." in the landmark judgment in the Case of "Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v K K R Majestic Colony Welfare Association" Criminal Appeal No. 732 of 2000 Decided on 30th August, 2000 (website:http://personal.vsnl.com/aspirations/Noise_LandmarkJudgmentofSCofIndia.html
.... for quick reference)On the other hand, by holding the function on the lawn with amplified sound system i.e. by using loud speakers, signals are being passed on to not only the law enforcing agency to ignore the Noise Rule altogether, which they have been doing so quite blatantly, but also all those who care for no one else other than themselves, those who do not respect law and make noise, breaking every prevailing rule without fear of any punishment. This would include educational institutions and religious places and even in hospitals. In a city with most highly dense population in the world, can there be any respite to common citizen despite protection available by law?
I have personally experienced this in connection with the three institutions namely a school, two religious places and a reputed General Hospital. I have had reasonable success at having these institutions lowering the noise levels by not only patient persuasive methods but also had to resort to taking help from the Police which does seem to think Noise rule violation and consequent assault by noise is not a law and order problem.
My humble request to your lordship, is to have the legal body in Mumbai to set a precedence that prevents deluge of disregard to law by interested parties.
with kind regards
Sudhir Badami
Phone number: 91 22 xxxx xxxx Mobile 98 216 85072
Address: MUMBAI, Indiacc Chief Justice C K Thakker, Bombay High Court by Email & Post
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you a Concerned Citizen? Would like to join a group of Concerned Citizens Forum In India? Write to mailto:CCFII-owner@yahoogroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit Website http://personal.vsnl.com/aspirations CURRENTLY for NOISE RELATED UPDATES --- Concerned about Noise? Write to mailto:ccfii-owner@yahoogroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussions sites:
Issues Which Concern Us http://wc1.worldcrossing.com/WebX?1@@.ef48b3b
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Structural Engineer's Forum of India http://www.sefindia.org
---------- 0 ---------- 0 ---------- 0 ----------- 0 ---------- 0 ----------