IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANIKUMAR, SHAJI P.CHALY, JJ.
Anoop Chandran – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
WP(C) No. 7261 of 2017
Decided on : 30-09-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) , 19(1)(b), 19(2),25 and 26 – Writ petition - Environment Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2 - Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 – Rule 2(c),3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 - Kerala Police Act, 2011- Section 72, 73(2)(b), 78 - Kerala Police Act, 1960– Section 16, 19, 20, 28 - Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 – Rule 36 - Environmental pollution - Noise pollution - Petitioner prayed for mandamus directing the sanction of use of mike, loudspeakers etc. and also for such other writs as this Court feels fit - Where the appellant can be permitted to violate the said provisions and add to the noise pollution.
Finding of the Court:
Condition is invalid and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India - The exercise of the freedom to act and practice in pursuance of religious beliefs is as much important as the freedom of believing in a religion - To persons believing in religious faith, there are some forms of practicing the religion by outward actions which are as much part of religion is the faith itself - Freedom to act and practice can be subject to regulations - In our Constitution subject to public order health and morality and to other provisions in Part ill of the Constitution - In every case power of regulation must be so exercised with the consciousness that the subject of regulation is a fundamental right of religion, and as not to unduly infringe the protection given by the Constitution - In the exercise of the power to regulate, the authorities cannot sit in judgment over the professed views of the adherents of the religion and to determine whether the practice is warranted by the religion or not - Authorities are directed to grant permission for the use of loud speakers under the statutory provisions only, and if any permission is granted, there shall not be any violation to the statutory provisions Additional Secretary to the Government, Home Department and State Police Chief are directed to monitor strict implementation of the directions issued - If there is any violation of the statutory provisions/instructions issued from time to time, strict action should be taken against the violators.
Result: Directions issued
JUDGMENT :
S. Manikumar, J.
Taking note of a letter dated 06.02.2017 sent by one Anoop Chandran, Valiyamala, Thiruvananthapuram, Registry has been directed to initiate suo motu action, and thus, W. P. (C) No. 7261 of 2017 has been registered.
2. Record of proceedings shows that on 10.02.2017, 14.02.2017 and 02.03.2017, this Court has passed the following interim orders:-
2. The following authorities, institutions and establishments are hereby impleaded and shall be arrayed as respondents:
1) Union of India.
2) State of Kerala, represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala.
3) Government of Kerala, represented by the Chief Secretary to
the Government of Kerala.
4) Department of Home, Government of Kerala.
5) State Police Chief, Government of Kerala.
6) The Kerala State Pollution Control Board, represented by its Member Secretary.
7) District Collectors and District Magistrates of all the districts of Kerala
8) The Travancore Devaswom Board, represented by its Secretary
9) The Cochin Devaswom Board, represented by its Secretary.
10) The Guruvayoor Devaswom, represented by its Secretary.
11) Koodalmanikyam Devaswom, represented by its Secretary.
3. Sri.Anoop Chandran who sent the complaint will be arrayed as the petitioner. The Registry will inform him over phone about the next listing of this matter for further consideration.
4. Learned Assistant Solicitor General takes notice for 1st respondent. Learned Senior Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 2 to 5 and all officers/authorities enlisted at Serial No.7. Respective learned standing counsel take notice for respondents at Serial Nos.6, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Show the name of the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Assistant Solicitor General and the learned standing counsel appearing for the other respondents in the cause list.”
“2. The learned Senior Government Pleader is justified in saying that the complaint appears to be only as regards places of worship (in particular, places of hindu religious worship). The menace of sound pollution and violation of laws under which limits as to sound have been fixed, has to apply not merely to places of worship, but as regards any user of loudspeakers etc. Unless any institution or programme is exempted by the competent authority under any law authorising grant of such exemption, the regulations under the laws governing sound pollution and also user of such public address systems and equipments will have to be enforced, appropriately. The State Government, Union of India, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board authorities and the Institutions which have been impleaded for the time being, may place their affidavits responding to the issue raised by the complainant and noticed through order dated 10.02.2017 and this order, before the next date of hearing.”
“1. The orders issued on 10.2.2017 and 14.2.2017 in D.B.P. No.10 of 2017 will be treated as orders issued in this suo motu writ petition today.
2. Having regard to the contents of Circular No.F1/92/Home dated 7.1.1993 issued by the Government of Kerala through the Home (F) Department, it is directed that the State Police Chief, all District Collectors, District Magistrates, all Commissioners of Police, all Superintendents of Police and all officers under their command will ensure that the contents of the said Circular are given effect to in letter and spirit, except at the peril of any defaulter of such official duties, by way of penalty or other impositions as may be ordered, if any dereliction in that regard is noted.
3. The Malabar Devaswom Board, represented by the Commissioner, Housefed Complex, Thenjipalam P.O., Kozhikode-673006, and the Kerala State Wakf Board, represented by the Chief Executive Officer, VIP Road, Near Kaloor Stadium, Ernakulam, Kochi-682
Appa Rao v. Government of Tamil Nadu
Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta and Ors. [(2004) 12 SCC 770]
Church of God In India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association
D. Anantha Prabhu v. The District Collector
Farhd K. Wadia v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. [(2009) 2 SCC 442]
M. Veerateswaran v. The Deputy Collector cum Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate [(2003) 2 MLJ 578]
Mahaboob Sheriff and Sons v. Mysore S. T Authority
N. Adithayan v. Tranvancore Devaswom Board [2002]SUPP 3 SCR 76
Sewpujanrai I. Ltd. v Collector of Customs AIR 1958 SC 845
SSTS Saheb v. State of Bombay 1962 Supp 2 SCR 496
Seshammal v. State of Tamilnadu 1972 3 SCR 815
Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay (Five Judges) AIR 1962 SC 853
Seshanmmal v. State of Tamil Nadu
The Commissioner v. L. T. Swamiar of Srirur Mutt (1954 SCR 1005)
Vinayaga Chathurthi Madhya Kuzhi v. State of Tamil Nadu 1997 MLJ(Cri) 142
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.