Back
High Court Of Calcutta
BHAGAWATI PRASAD BANERJEE
OM BIRANGANA RELIGIOUS SOCIETY - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION 4303 Of 1995
Decided On : 04/01/1996
USE OF MICROPHONES/LOUD-SPEAKERS - SECTION 34A OF POLICE ACT, 1963 - POWER TO PROHIBIT, RESTRICT, REGULATE OR IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE USE OF MICROPHONES, ETC. - FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION - ARTICLE 19 (1) (A) OF THE CONSTITUTION - RIGHT TO PROPAGATE RELIGION - ARTICLE 25 OF THE CONSTITUTION - NOISE POLLUTION - CONTROL AND POLLUTION ACT, 1974 - WEST BENGAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD - GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF MICROPHONES/LOUD-SPEAKERS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a religious organization, challenged the interference by the respondents with their right to use microphones, loudspeakers, and other sound-amplifying devices during religious activities, claiming that such interference violated their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the use of microphones and loudspeakers could be regulated to protect the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, as well as the right to propagate religion under Article 25 of the Constitution, and that such regulation was necessary to prevent noise pollution and protect public health.
Issues: 1. Whether the use of microphones and loudspeakers during religious activities is protected by the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the right to propagate religion under Article 25 of the Constitution includes the right to use microphones and loudspeakers during religious activities? 3. Whether the use of microphones and loudspeakers can be regulated to protect public health and prevent noise pollution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution includes the right to propagate religion, but that this right is not absolute and can be reasonably restricted in the interest of public order, morality, and health. 2. The court held that the right to propagate religion does not include the right to use microphones and loudspeakers during religious activities in a manner that causes noise pollution and disturbs the peace and tranquility of the public. 3. The court held that the use of microphones and loudspeakers can be regulated to protect public health and prevent noise pollution, and that such regulation is necessary to protect the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner to use microphones and loudspeakers during religious activities in accordance with the guidelines set out in the judgment. The court also directed the West Bengal Pollution Control Board to maintain a noise level register and to take steps to enforce the noise level limits specified in the judgment.
( 1 ) IN this writ application, the petitioner, a religious organisation, claims that the respondents should not interfere with the right of user of microphones, loud-speakers, and for amplifying human voice and for amplifying other sounds while playing daily pujas and other religious activities and display of religious songs. The petitioner prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the District Magistrate and/or the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghatal, to accord necessary permission in favour of the said society in terms of section 34a of the Police Act, 1963, (West Bengal Amendment ).
( 2 ) THE point raised in this writ application is of great public importance and significance. Section 34a of the Police Act, 1861, as amended by the West Bengal Act 38 of 1963, reads as follows:"34a. Power to prohibit, restrict, regulate or impose conditions on the use of microphones, etc. , (1) If, in the opinion of the Magistrate of the district or any Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class, it is necessary so to do for the purpose of preventing annoyance to, or injury to the health of, the public or any section thereof, or for the purpose of maintaining public peace and tranquillity, he may, by order, prohibit, restrict, regulate or impose conditions on, the use or operation, in any area with his jurisdiction or in any vehicle within such area of microphones, loud-speakers or other apparatus for amplifying human voice or for amplifying music or other sounds. (2) The State Government may, on its own motion or on the representation of any person or persons aggrieved, modify, alter or cancel any order made under sub-section (1 ). (3) A police officer, not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, may take such steps or use such force as may be reasonably necessary for securing compliance with any order made under sub-section (1) or any such order as modified or offered by the State Government under sub-section (2) and may seize any microphone, loud-speaker or other apparatus used or operated in contravention of the order. "
( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that microphones are required by the society during puja performance, arati, nitya puja, etc. , and that nobody ever raised any objection to the performance of the aforesaid religious activities in the manner and in the way as had been done, but the Sub-Divisional Officer. Ghatal, directed the petitioner/society not to use any microphone while performing puja and other religious activities without serving any notice in the month of September, 1993.
( 4 ) IT also appears that the petitioner filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghatal, on October 11, 1993, so that permission would be granted in favour of the said society for use of microphones.
( 5 ) SIMILAR application was filed by the petitioner before the Circle Inspector of Police, Ghatal, on 17th October, 1993, so that necessary permission may be granted in favour of the said society for the use of the microphones for the aforesaid purpose.
( 6 ) THE petitioner has alleged inaction on the part of the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to deal with and dispose of the petitioner's application for permission to use microphone.
( 7 ) SECTION 34a of the Police Act. 1861, provided power to prohibit, restrict, regulate or impose conditions on the use of microphones, if in the opinion of the Magistrate of the District or any Sub-Divisional Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class it is necessary so to do for the purpose of preventing annoyance or injury to health of the public or any section thereof or for the purpose of maintaining public peace and tranquillity, such officer may, by an order, prohibit, restrict or regulate or impose conditions on the use or operation in any area within his jurisdiction or in any vehicle within such area of microphones or loudspeakers or other apparatus for amplifying human voice or for amplifying music and other sounds.
(
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
