The judgment established the principle that while freedom of expression is a constitutional guarantee, it is subject to considerations of public order, morality, and decency, and must be balanced with the prevention of sound pollution and the right to silence.

K.P. Dandapani, J.

Two counsel counsel the cause of civil courts in Tirur.

2. They project the helplessness of the Courts against the staging of the Dharna, procession and other modes of agitations in front of the gate of the Court, which also happens to be the open space leading to the offices to the Sub Treasury, Sub Registry and the Sub Jail, apart from the busy Tirur Railway Station. They state that the agitations by different political parties being held in that open space with sound amplifiers, loud speakers and cone mikes and on such occasions no useful work could be done in any of these offices, especially in Courts. Sometimes the nuisance starts from morning and continues till evening with amplified sound running into several decibels, the counsel complains.

3. The petitioners seek the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents, who are the police officers of Tirur and Malappuram, not to give permission to use sound amplifiers and loud speakers in front of the court premises and also not to erect bamboo poles fitted with sound amplifiers and loud speakers in the Municipal Town Hall.

4. No counter affidavit is filed; perhaps for want of any sound contention to controvert this common problem. Hence, we have to proceed with the averments in the original petition as uncontroverted.

5. The problem of sound pollution has always attracted judicial review. The one who is against it pleads that it is an invasion of the right to be let alone, to hear what he wants to hear, to not to hear, what he does not wish to hear; and one who pleads for it takes shelter under the fundamental right to freedom of speech.

6. This court in the decision in Anantha Prabhu v. District Collector & Another reported in 1974 KLT 291 following the decision reported in AIR 1963 Gujrat 259 Indulal v. State held that the right which is guaranteed by Art.19(1)(a) is not merely a right to express and propagate one's views, but also includes in it the right to cirulate one's view to others by all such means as are available to the citizen to make known these views. But this Court in Venu v. Director General of Police (1990 (2) KLT 86) held that the right to use a loud speaker is not a fundamental right in itself. It was further held that sound pollution is an accepted danger and indiscriminate use of loud speakers cannot be permitted. It is for the authority to satisfy itself, whether in a given situation a loud speaker can be used. As for freedom of expression, it is a constitutional guarantee and a prime perception, in a democratic society, but, subject to considerations of public order, morality and decency. Every freedom has its discernible frontiers. It is liable to be clipped on grounds of public order, morality and decency. Disaffection, sedition, riots etc. will be valid grounds for restraint. This Court in another decision in Jacob v. Superintendent of Police reported in 1992 (2) KLT 238 distinguished the decision reported in 1974 KLT 291 which followed the decision in AIR 1963 Gujarat 259, and struck a different note:

"No one can forbid legitimate efforts to change the mind of society by expression of views or advocating different persuasions or even by questioning the existing order. But, there are frontiers even to freedoms. Liberty is not the right perpetuates licentiousness. Free speech does not protect sedition, libel or obscenity. It does not sanction intrusion into rights of others. To be let alone, is as much as freedom, as the freedom to be heard. Right to silence or solitude, is as much a right, as right to expression is. What is negatively the rigfit to silence, is positively freedom from injury by noise. The right to speech implies, the right to silence. It implies freedom, not to listen, and not to be forced to listen".

In another unreported decision in O. P. 9560/88 this court laid down certain guidelines to formulate a uniform policy in the matter of regulation of