SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 898

R. C. LAHOTI, ASHOK BHAN
In Re: Noise Pollution-Implementation of the Laws for Restricting Use of Loudspeakers and High Volume Producing Sound Systems – Appellant
Versus
In Re: Noise Pollution-Implementation of the Laws for Restricting Use of Loudspeakers and High Volume Producing Sound Systems – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Guidelines Issued by the Supreme Court on Noise Pollution

The judgment issues comprehensive guidelines under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution, applicable until modified or superseded by legislation. These cover firecrackers, loudspeakers/public address systems, vehicular horns, awareness measures, and general enforcement provisions. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

I. Firecrackers

  • Firecrackers to be evaluated based on chemical composition (proportion, maximum permissible weight of chemicals) rather than noise levels for practicality in enforcement; Department of Explosives (DOE) to specify formulae for each type/category/class. (!) (!)
  • Firecrackers divided into: (i) sound-emitting; (ii) colour/light-emitting. (!)
  • Complete ban on bursting sound-emitting firecrackers between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.; no time restrictions on colour/light-emitting firecrackers. (!) (!)
  • Manufacturers must label boxes with chemical contents and DOE compliance; non-compliance leads to manufacturer liability. (!)
  • Export firecrackers with higher noise levels permitted only with export order, conforming to destination country's standards, distinct colour packing, and "not for sale in India" declaration; liability on manufacturer/dealer if sold domestically. (!) (!) (!)

II. Loudspeakers/Public Address Systems/Instruments

  • Noise at boundary of public place ≤10 dB(A) above ambient standards or 75 dB(A), whichever lower. (!)
  • Ban on drums, tom-toms, trumpets, instruments, or sound amplifiers at night (10 p.m.–6 a.m.) except public emergencies. (!) (!) (!)
  • Private sound systems: peripheral noise ≤5 dB(A) above ambient standards at private place boundary. (!)

III. Vehicular Noise (Horns)

  • No horns in residential areas at night (10 p.m.–6 a.m.) except exceptional circumstances. (!) (!) (!)

IV. Awareness and Education

  • Add chapters on noise pollution/civic sense in school textbooks; organize school lectures/talks on its hazards and children's role. (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • Train police/civil administration on curbing methods and laws. (!)
  • State to actively promote via Resident Welfare Associations, service clubs, societies. (!)
  • Pre-festival/event awareness campaigns on firecracker use. (!) (!)

V. General Enforcement

  • States to enable seizure/confiscation of loudspeakers, amplifiers, equipment exceeding limits. (!) (!) (!)
  • Implement Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000: categorize areas (industrial/commercial/residential/silence zones), notify standards/authorities. (!)
  • Silence zones: ≥100m around hospitals, educational institutions, courts. (!) (!)

These guidelines emphasize right to peaceful life under Article 21, prioritizing health over noise creation; violations actionable as nuisance under prevailing laws. (!) (!) (!) (!)


Judgment

R.C. Lahoti, CJI.—These two matters before us raise certain issues of far-reaching implications in day-to-day life of the people in India relatable to noise pollution vis-a-vis right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution as interpreted in its wide sweep by the constitutional courts of the country. Though a limited grievance was raised to begin with but several intervenors and interlocutory applications enhanced the scope of hearing and the cases were heard in a very wide perspective centering around Article 21 of the Constitution. Several associated and incidental issues have also been gone into.

Facts in W.P. (C) No. 72/98

2. CWP No. 72/98 is filed by Shri Anil K. Mittal, an engineer by profession moving the Court pro bono publico. The immediate provocation for filing the petition was that a 13 year old girl was a victim of rape (as reported in newspapers of January 3, 1998). Her cries for help sunk and went unheard due to blaring noise of music over loudspeaker in the neighbourhood. The victim girl, later in the evening, set herself ablaze and died of 100 burn injuries. The petition complains of noise created by the use of the loudspeakers being used in relig




































































































































































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top