2000 Supreme(SC) 1412

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.B.Shah : S.N.Phukan
Church Of God (Full Gospel) In India
Versus
K.K.R.Majestic Colony Welfare Association
Case No. : 732 of 2000
Date of Decision : 8/30/00
Advocates Appeared: Goel A.K. : Krishnan G. : Mohan R. : Pandey L.K. : Prabhakar V. : Pragasam V.G. : Radhakrishnan A. : Raghavan Revathy : Shivabalamugan G.

Headnote:Environment (Protection) Act, 1986-Madras Town Nuisance Act, 1989-Section 10-Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000-Environment (Protection) Rules-Rule 3-Noise Pollution-In the name of religion, activities which disturb old or infirm persons, students or children having their sleep in early hours or during day-time or other persons-Carrying on other activities cannot be permitted-Beating of drums or reciting of prayers by use of microphones and loudspeakers so as to disturb peace or tranquility of neighbourhood should not be permitted.

       In a country having multiple religions 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 tranquility 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 paychic disturbances as well as children up to 6 years of age are considered to be very sensible to noise. Their rights are also required to be honoured. (Para 2)

       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 industrialization, urbanization 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 organized society, rights are related with duties towards others including neighbours. (Para 3)

       Because of urbanization or industrialization 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 or 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. (Para 13)