1. The appellant challenged the constitutional validity of a regulatory rule permitting temporary exemptions for loudspeaker usage during cultural or religious occasions, citing violation of fundamental rights. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2005 Supreme(SC) 1436
2005(7) Supreme 504
Supreme Court of India
(From Kerala High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI, Ashok Bhan, J.
Forum, Prevention of Envn. & Sound Pollution —Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3735 of 2005
Decided on 28-10-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : G.E. Vahanvati, Solicitor General, Jitendra Sharma, Sr. Advocate (AC), Mukul Rohtagi, U.U. Lalit, Shyam Divan, Sr. Advocates, M.K.S. Menon, M.K. Michael, Sandeep Narain, Advocate (AC), Anil Kumar Mittal, Ms. Anjali Jha, Makarand D. Adkar, Vijay Kumar, B.K. Mishra, Ms. Aparna Jha, V. Madhukar, Ms. H. Wahi, Ms. Indra Sawhney, Ms. Deeksha Mishra, P. Parmeswaran, K.R. Sasiprabhu, Ravindra K. Adsure, Bhavanishankar V. Gadnis, Ms. Sunita B. Rao, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Chandra Prakash, Vijay Panjwani, R. Ayyam Perumal, Sewa Ram, V. Madhukar, Dr. A. Francis, A. Julian, A. Mariarputham, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, V.K. Sidharthan, P.V. Yogeswaran, S. Ravi Shankar, Ms. Hemanandini Deori, M.A. Chinnasamy, Braj Kishore Mishra, R. Nedumaran, Ms. Mamrata Chopra and S. Beno Bencigar, Advocates.
Important point
Sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2002 which permitted State Government to relax applicability of sub-rule (2) and grant exemption therefrom between 10 p.m. and 12 midnight was not ultra vires the Constitution.
Headnote:
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Sections 6 and 25 - Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 - Noise Pollution -Power of State Govt. to grant exemption under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 5 - A limited power of exemption from the operation of the Noise Rules granted by the Central Government in exercise of its statutory power cannot be held to be unreasonable- The power shall be exercised by reference to the State as a unit and not by reference to districts -State Government would exercise the power with due care and caution and in public interest- Scope of the exemption cannot be widened either by increasing the number of days or by increasing the duration beyond two hours- If that is attempted to be done, then the said sub-rule (3) conferring power to grant exemption may be liable to be struck down as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. ( para 7 )
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. The appellant questioned the exemption's validity, whereas the state defended it as a reasonable, public-interest restriction limited in scope and duration. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 )
3. The court upheld the rule's validity, emphasizing that the limited exemption power must be exercised reasonably and without exceeding strict duration or scope constraints. (Para 11 )
4. Are temporary exemptions for loudspeaker use during religious or cultural festivals constitutional?
Yes, provided the exemption power is conferred on the state without further delegation, acts on the state as a single unit, remains strictly limited in scope, and adheres to noise decibel limits. (Para 9 )
5. Does the fundamental right to freedom of religion include the right to use loudspeakers?
No, the court held that religious practices do not necessitate loudspeakers, and the fundamental right of citizens to be protected against noise pollution and forced audiences takes precedence. (Para 7 , 8 )
6. Can the state government delegate the power to grant loudspeaker exemptions to lower authorities?
No, the power to grant exemptions under the Noise Rules is conferred upon the State Government and cannot be further delegated; it must be exercised at the state level, not district-wise. (Para 9 )
Judgment
R.C. Lahoti, CJI.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 3, sub-section (i) and clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Sections 6 and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29/1986), read with Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 the Central Government made the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Noise Rules’) which have come into force w.e.f. 14th February, 2000.
2. Rule 5 of the Noise Rules reads as under:
“5. Restrictions on the use of loud speakers/public address system:–
(1) A loudspeaker or a public address system shall not be used except after obtaining written permission from the authority.
(2) A loudspeaker or a public address system shall not be used at night (between 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m.) except in closed premises for communication within, e.g. auditoria, conference rooms, community halls and banquet halls.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), the State Government may, subject to such terms and conditions as are necessary to reduce noise pollution, permit use of loud speakers or public address systems during night hours (between 10.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight) on or during any cultural or religious festive occasion of a limited duration not exceeding fifteen days in all during a calendar year.”
Sub-rule (3) has been inserted in the present form by the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) (Amendment) Rules, 2002 with effect from 11th October, 2002. The constitutional validity of sub-rule (3) was put in issue by the appellant herein by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala. By its Judgment dated 14th March, 2003, the High Court has directed the petition to be dismissed and the sub-rule has been held to be intra vires. The aggrieved petitioner has filed this petition by special leave.
3. On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that this Court in its Judgment dated July 18, 2005 Noise Pollution (V), in Re., (2005) 5 SCC 733, has held that freedom from noise pollution is a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Noise interferes with the fundamental right of the citizens to live in peace and to protect themselves against forced audience. This Court has also held that as between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. which is the time for the people to sleep and have peace, no noise pollution can be permitted. The appellant also submits that the impugned sub-rule (3) which permits the State Government to relax the applicability of sub-rule (2) and grant exemption therefrom between 10 p.m. and 12 midnight, is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution and runs counter to the law laid down by this Court in Noise Pollution (V), in Re. (supra).
4. The learned Solicitor General has defended the vires of the said sub-rule (3) and also the Judgment of the High Court. In his submission, the power to grant exemption is a reasonable restriction placed in public interest. The relaxation is for a period of 2 hours only and that too for a maximum of 15 days in all during a calendar year confined to cultural or religious occasions. Since the power has been conferred on the State Government by the Central Government it cannot further be delegated. The power would be exercised by the State Government by keeping in view the interest of the entire State population.
5. Our attention was invited to Government of Goa Order No. 7/4/98/STE/DIR/Part-I/1116 published in the Official Gazette, Government of Goa, Extraordinary No. 5, dated 5th February, 2005, wherein exercising the powers conferred by the said sub-rule (3) of Rule 5, the Government of Gao has specified nine days, in advance, on which the exemption granted by sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 would be available. The Government has reserved the power to notify six more days for cultural/religious festive occasions. Similarly, our attention was invited to Notification No. NP 200/24/3 (Part 3) dated 7th April, 2003 whereby the Maharashtra Go
