The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the prohibition on the use of air horns under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and its conformity with the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000.

Headnote:
Noise Pollution - Enforcement of Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Rule 3(1), Rule 119 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Section 120(2) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the necessity of enforcing the provisions of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. It highlighted the ambient air quality standards, enforcement responsibilities, and consequences under Rule 3(1). The court also emphasized the prohibition on the use of air horns under Rule 119 and the noise standards under Section 120(2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The judgment emphasized the adverse health effects of noise pollution and the need for strict enforcement of environmental protection laws.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants and petitioner challenged the prohibition on the use of air horns by stage carriages and the police's actions. They argued that the prohibition was without jurisdiction and imposed unreasonable restrictions on their fundamental rights. The court had previously given a positive direction to the police and Transport Authorities to abate noise pollution.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prohibition on the use of air horns was valid and in conformity with the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000. It also addressed a drafting error in Rule 119 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and clarified that private operators have no legal right to use air horns.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the prohibition on the use of air horns, the jurisdiction of the police, and the fundamental rights of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant rules and acts, the adverse health effects of noise pollution, and the constitutional duty to rectify drafting errors to achieve legislative intention.
Final Decision: The writ appeals and writ petitions were disposed of, affirming the validity of the prohibition on the use of air horns and emphasizing the need for strict enforcement of environmental protection laws.

Judgment :-

Radhakrishnan, Ag.C.J.

The necessity of enforcing the provisions of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 was highlighted by the apex Court in Church of God v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association, 2000(3) KLT 651 (SC). Rule 3(1) of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 provides for the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise for different areas/zones as specified in the Schedule annexed to the Rules. Responsibility as to the enforcement of noise pollution Control measures has been narrated therein. So also, its consequence. The principles laid down by the apex court was followed by a Bench of this Court in WA. 3125 of 2001 and the following directions were issued.

“We, therefore, dispose of the writ appeal and the original petition by directing the state of Kerala, the first respondent, to take necessary steps to identify the zones and generally to fulfil all the requirements of Rule 3 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 within six months from this date. The thereafter, be entitled to consider the application for use of loud speakers and permit them strictly in terms of the said Rules and the identification of the zones. The Sate and the authorities under it, including the Pollution Control Board, will continue to enforce the directions issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police in the circular dated 22-7-2000 until the required exercise under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 is undertaken by the State Government.

It is a matter of serious concern that Environment Protection laws are not properly implemented and/or enforced by the various authorizes and officers of the State including the Pollution Control Board. The State Government is directed to ensure that its officers, the Local Authorities and the Pollution Control Board strictly implement the Environment Protection Laws, Rules Regulations and notifications and to take strong action against those who do not implement them strictly and in consonance with the spirit of such laws.”

World Health Organisation in its report on human health has stated as follows;

“Prolonged or excessive exposure to noise, whether in the community or at work, can cause serious permanent medical conditions like hypertension and ischaemic heart disease. Noise can adversely affect performance, for instance reading, attentiveness, problem solving and memory.”

Motor vehicles fitted with air horn is always a menace to the traveling public as well as pedestrians and people residing on either side of the roads. Driver may be enjoying the use of air horns. Vehicle fitted with air horn would get the pedestrians off the road, at times causes danger to the life of the pedestrians. Use of air horn may cause severe physiological and pshychological impacts on the pedestrians. Deafness is the last stop of noise and can damage the eardrum. Legislature has thought of illeffects of such use of air horns has introduced Rule 119 to Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 which is extracted below for easy reference.

“119. Horns:- (1) On and after expiry of one year from the date of Commencement of the Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules 1999 every motor vehicles including a construction equipment vehicle and agricultural tractor manufactured shall be fitted with an electric horn or other devices conforming to the requirements of IS: 1884-1992. specified by the Bureau of Indian standards for use by the driver of the vehicle and capable of giving audible and sufficient warning of the approach or position of the vehicle.

Provided that on and from 1st January, 2003, the horn installation requirements shall be as per AIS-014 specifications, as may be amended from time to time, till such time as corresponding Bureau of Indian Standards specifications are notified.

(2) No motor vehicle including agricultural tractor shall be fitted with any multi-toned horn givin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document