1. Challenge to constitutional validity of Rule 5(3) Noise Rules permitting night use of loudspeakers on festive occasions. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2005 Supreme(SC) 1438
Supreme Court Of India
(R.C. LAHOTI, CJI., ASHOK BHAN, J.)
NOISE POLLUTION (VII), IN RE [FORUM, PREVENTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL &
SOUND POLLUTION] - Appellant;
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 3735 of 2005
decided on October 28,2005
Important Points
A limited exception allowing the use of loudspeakers between 10 p.m. and 12 midnight for up to 15 days annually is a reasonable restriction and does not violate the right to life under Article 21, provided the scope of the exemption is not expanded.
Subject
Environmental Law - Noise Pollution
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Sections 3, 6 and 25 - Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 - Rule 5 - Use of loudspeakers and public address systems - Restrictions on night-time use - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 21 - Right to be free from noise pollution as a component of the right to life - Validity of sub-rule permitting State Government to grant limited exemptions between 10:00 p.m. and 12:00 midnight for cultural or religious festive occasions for a limited duration not exceeding 15 days in a calendar year - Limited power to grant such exemption held to be reasonable and not violative of Article 21, provided the scope is not widened (Paras 2, 3, 8).
(B) Administrative Law - Delegation of power - Power conferred on State Government to grant exemptions under Noise Rules cannot be further delegated - Power must be exercised by reference to the State as a unit and not by reference to districts - State Governments should generally specify exemption days in advance to exclude arbitrariness (Para 8).
(C) Noise Pollution - Silence Zones - Exemptions granted under the Noise Rules shall not apply to silence zone areas (Para 8).
Facts of the case:
Challenge was made to the constitutional validity of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. The impugned sub-rule allows State Governments to permit the use of loudspeakers or public address systems during night hours (between 10:00 p.m. and 12:00 midnight) on cultural or religious festive occasions for a total duration not exceeding fifteen days in a calendar year. The High Court had previously upheld the sub-rule as intra vires, leading to the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that while the right to peace and freedom from noise pollution is a part of the right to life under Article 21, a limited exemption of two hours for a maximum of 15 days is a reasonable restriction in the public interest, especially given the cultural and religious diversity of the population.
Issues: Whether the sub-rule allowing the State Government to relax the night-time ban on loudspeakers for a limited period and duration is violative of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the limited power of exemption is reasonable and does not violate Article 21. However, to prevent misuse and arbitrariness, the power cannot be further delegated, must be exercised for the State as a unit, and the dates should be notified in advance. The court further clarified that any attempt to widen the scope by increasing the number of days or hours of exemption may render the rule violative of Articles 14 and 21. Such exemptions cannot be applied to silence zones.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(B) Administrative Law - Delegation of power - Power conferred on State Government to grant exemptions under Noise Rules cannot be further delegated - Power must be exercised by reference to the State as a unit and not by reference to districts - State Governments should generally specify exemption days in advance to exclude arbitrariness (Para 8).
(C) Noise Pollution - Silence Zones - Exemptions granted under the Noise Rules shall not apply to silence zone areas (Para 8).
Facts of the case:
Challenge was made to the constitutional validity of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. The impugned sub-rule allows State Governments to permit the use of loudspeakers or public address systems during night hours (between 10:00 p.m. and 12:00 midnight) on cultural or religious festive occasions for a total duration not exceeding fifteen days in a calendar year. The High Court had previously upheld the sub-rule as intra vires, leading to the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that while the right to peace and freedom from noise pollution is a part of the right to life under Article 21, a limited exemption of two hours for a maximum of 15 days is a reasonable restriction in the public interest, especially given the cultural and religious diversity of the population.
Issues: Whether the sub-rule allowing the State Government to relax the night-time ban on loudspeakers for a limited period and duration is violative of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the limited power of exemption is reasonable and does not violate Article 21. However, to prevent misuse and arbitrariness, the power cannot be further delegated, must be exercised for the State as a unit, and the dates should be notified in advance. The court further clarified that any attempt to widen the scope by increasing the number of days or hours of exemption may render the rule violative of Articles 14 and 21. Such exemptions cannot be applied to silence zones.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- environment law
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Appellant: sub-rule violates Article 21 right to life. Respondent: power is a reasonable restriction in public interest. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Limited power of exemption is not unreasonable given India's cultural diversity; exemption cannot be widened beyond 15 days or 2 hours. (Para 6 , 8 )
4. State Government's power under Noise Rules to exempt night loudspeaker use on cultural/religious occasions, limited to 15 days per year and 2 hours per night, is constitutionally valid. (Para 8 )
5. Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment affirmed subject to observations limiting scope of exemption. (Para 9 , 10 )
6. Is freedom from noise pollution part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution?
Yes, this Court has held that freedom from noise pollution is a part of the right to life under Article 21, and no noise pollution can be permitted between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. (Para 3 )
7. Is the State Government's power under Rule 5(3) to permit use of loudspeakers between 10 p.m. and 12 midnight on cultural/religious occasions constitutionally valid?
Yes, it is a reasonable restriction in public interest. The power cannot be delegated further, the number of days (15 per year) and duration (2 hours) cannot be increased, and it shall not apply to silence zones. (Para 8 )
8. Can the use of loudspeakers be considered a mandatory religious practice?
No, the court observed that no religion makes the use of loudspeakers a must for performing any religious act, and forcing unwilling listeners to hear religious messages is not supported by religious tenets. (Para 7 )
Judgment
R.C. LAHOTI, C.J.I.- 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 of 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. 14-2-2000.
2. Rule 5 of the Noise Rules reads as under:
"5. Restrictions on the use of loudspeakers/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 a.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 loudspeakers 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 11-10-2002. 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 14-3-2003, 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 18-7-2005 Noise Pollution (V), In re1 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 re1.
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 5 dated 5-2-2005, wherein exercising the powers conferred by the said sub-rule (3) of Rule 5, the Government of Goa 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 7-4-2003 whereby the Maharashtra Government exercising the power under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 has not
